tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 31 07:15:06 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Aspect (was RE: KLBC-Fr.)
> I'll use English here because I want no lack of clarity when you read this:
> The act of not having chosen his Klingon name (yet) is still in the process;
> it is not completed at all. Even though time has passed during which the
> subject did not choose his Klingon name, the time is continuing to pass and
> the event has not reached a state of completion. Because perfective cannot
> apply to a partially completed state (event), neither {-ta'} nor {-pu'} can
> apply.
>
> Please re-evaluate your concept of aspect.
For clarity, the sentence we're considering here is:
wej tlhIngan pongwIj vIwIvta'
"I haven't chosen my Klingon name yet"
HovqIj is right on target with this, peHruS. Using {wej} sets the time-frame to a point
in the future. (Yes, future.) The completion (indicated with {-ta'}) will happen in the
future. I'll re-quote some of your text to illustrate the point.
> The act of not having chosen his Klingon name (yet) is still in the process;
> it is not completed at all.
Right, that's why the sentence has the meaning it does. I haven't chosen a Klingon name
yet. At some point in the future the act of choosing a Klingon name will be completed
(intentionally). From the point of view of "now," that completion occurs at some time in
the future.
The sentence isn't talking about the current, on-going process of deciding upon a name.
The sentence is referring to a point in the future after which the deciding has occured.
> Even though time has passed during which the
> subject did not choose his Klingon name, the time is continuing to pass and
> the event has not reached a state of completion.
Only if you think of the time-frame of the sentence as "now," which is not the case.
{wej} means "not yet," which means the time-frame is not in the past and not in the
present, i.e., the future. From the point of view of the future time-frame, the act will
be completed.
> Because perfective cannot
> apply to a partially completed state (event), neither {-ta'} nor {-pu'} can
> apply.
Partially? peHruS, a state is not a process. It's binary. On or off. 0 or 1. Pregnant
or not. You can't be partially pregnant, partially 0, etc. In no case can aspect in
Klingon refer to a partially completed event. So your statement that aspect cannot apply
to partially completed state is meaningless.
At this point I feel like I'm beating the ground where the corpse of the dead targ used to
lie, before it decomposed, while holding my nose from the stench. You seem to be
operating under the faulty understanding of aspect as some sort of process, or that it's
far more complicated than it is, or something.
A long time ago, Captain Krankor established the role of "Grammarian" on this list, so
that there would be one deciding voice over issues of usage on this list. Even if the
usage was not completely understood, it kept people from endlessly bickering about who was
right. It also prevented other people from coming forward to correct other people's
grammar. For one thing, we didn't need 100 people pointing out each grammatical missive.
But also, it kept less experienced Klingonists from propogating incorrect corrections.
I am not the Grammarian for this list. The last offically appointed Grammarian was
Seqram, who is currently not here. There are plenty of retired Beginner's Grammarians
here to help out with usage, but there isn't a single voice of authority. Perhaps we have
grown sufficiently so that we don't really need this voice now. But we have an exception
here, that would in the past have been handled by Krankor or Seqram. As the list's
administrator, I am stepping forward to *ask* you, peHruS, at the very least not to
correct other people's usage of aspect. You have consistently demonstrated a lack of
understanding of this point, and these discussions have not only failed to clarify the
issue, but have been responsible for lots of bad feelings on this list.
I'm not asking you to not discuss aspect. If you think it's being used incorrectly and
want clarification, ask. This is a powerful learning opportunity. But I am asking you
not to tell other people that they are wrong, or that they need to re-evaluate their
conception of aspect. You are not a grammarian, you have not demonstrated your mastery of
this concept, and you are possibly spreading confusion and misunderstanding where it need
not be.
Now, for everyone who has read along this far, let me say one more thing. This note is
not written out of spite, disrespect, or disdain for peHruS. He's a nice, friendly guy,
who I've had the pleasure to meet at the qep'a' for the past two years. I want to go out
of my way to make it clear to everyone that I'm not trying to insult or belittle him in
any way.
In the absence of the official list Grammarians, the Beginner's Grammarians are the list's
authoritative voices on correctness. For the same reasons that led Krankor to establish
the Grammarian post in the first place, I suggest that only these BG's (past and present)
handle corrections of other people's misuse of the language. It's not my intent to
discourage discussion, the whole point of this list is to provide a forum where we can
learn how to use this language, and discussing grammar is a great way to do it. But let's
leave posts that correct grammar to the BG's (and of course the Grammarians, when they are
here). We don't need a mob jumping in every time someone makes a mistake, and we don't
need faulty corrections adding to anyone's confusion.
Thank you.
> peHruS
-- Holtej 'utlh
tlhIngan-Hol Mailing List FAQ:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm