tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 29 22:13:15 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: jIjat
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: jIjat
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 00:30:26 -0500
From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
>ja' SuStel:
>> In an {X-taHvIS Y} situation, you know the following:
>>
>> (1) X is continuous, because it has the {-taH} suffix.
>>
>> (2) Y is not continuous, and it is not completed.
>>
>although this is what TKD says, taken literally, do you
>really think this is completely accurate?
Sure. Why not?
>would you agree with amending:
>> If you want Y to be continuous or completed, you have to use the
appropriate
>> suffix, for instance:
>>
>to read "if you want to focus on Y being continous or completed resp., ..."
No. Just because you use an aspect suffix doesn't mean you're focusing on
that suffix. Having an aspect suffix simply means that verb gets an aspect.
>if not, do you read
>> jIyIttaHvIS chal vIlegh.
>> While I was walking, I looked at the sky. (The looking is not continous
or
>> completed.)
>>
>as "..., I glanced at the sky" as opposed to taking an "ongoing" look at
it?
I read it as the looking not being continuous or completed. That may be
"glanced," or it may not. It's {legh} without any aspect. It's whatever
{legh} means when it's not {leghpu'}, {leghta'}, {leghtaH}, or {leghlI'}.
While I was walking continuously and without a specific goal which I'm going
to mention, I looked at the sky, and the looking was neither continuous
(like the walking) nor completed at that time. It simply happened.
SuStel
Stardate 99080.7