tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 30 11:35:06 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: jIjat
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: jIjat
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:35:05 CST
- In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:26:56 -0800
> >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?
>
because this interpretation seems to make aspect marking
obligatory. the way most terran languages I know handle
aspect is more liberal, if the speaker sees the action
as a whole, she would not use a continuous aspect marker
even if the action is not instantaneous in any way,
if she sees the course of action, she would.
similarly, if she sees the completion of the action,
she would use a completion aspect marker, while, if the
action's being completed doesn't matter, she wouldn't...
so, your position is that this is different in Klingon?
I have to use aspect markers (incl. -0-) according to
"reality" as opposed to "perception"?
> >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.
>
bIyajHa'... what I meant was, by using an aspect marker, you're
focusing on the action's being cont./compl. vs. "doesn't matter to me",
I didn't mean you're focusing on the aspect vs. other suffixes
> >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'}.
>
incidentally, I think of {legh} as "he is/was/will be looking" just as well
as "they look" etc.
Marc Ruehlaender
aka HomDoq
[email protected]