tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 02 07:30:21 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


> In a message dated 5/26/1999 3:50:09 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> writes:
> << Your use of aspect on {vIlo'pu'} suggests that you had used some
>  construction using {pat} in the past, but that use is completed.  I asked,
>  "what words do you use to describe your computer now?"  I asked this because
>  I was more curious about your use of aspect that I was about the terms you
>  might use to describe "network." >>
> ============
> Additional:  TKD {vIta'pu'be'}.

And your point is.....?  Yes, this phrase exists in TKD.  It's glossed as "I didn't do
it."  (I always hear Bart Simpson's voice saying "It wasn't me, man," whenever I read this

I'm talking about your use of the verb {vIlo'pu'}.  This means, relative to the time the
sentence was written (since there was no other time reference) "I had used it," with the
notion of completion.

You know what?  I'm going to stop trying to figure out what your point is, and just let it
drop.  If you won't even bother writing down what you're thinking, I won't waste my time
guessing.  I told you exactly what my concern was about {vIlo'pu'} in that context, if you
have something to say about it, just say it.

Oh, here we go, you had more to say later, so you answered this same message again.

> Ah, this is exactly why I am still suggesting books and articles regarding
> the subject of Aspect.  My usage indicated by {mu' [pat] vIlo'pu'} does
> indeed mean that I had used the word {pat} "system" wholly in the PAST.  But,
> this does not preclude my using it again.  Even though the action mentioned
> WAS wholly in the past, it may occur again.  It may be occurring now without
> the use of the imperfective {-taH}.

Okay, let's back off and forget about {-taH} for a while.  We have our hands quite full
with {-ta'} and {-pu'}, though I feel we are getting closer.

What I said was,

> Your use of aspect on {vIlo'pu'} suggests that you had used some
> construction using {pat} in the past, but that use is completed.

There are only two reasons I can see for using {-pu'} on that verb.  One is to indicate
that the use of {pat} is completed.  The other is to indicate that the use of {pat}
occurred in the past, if you misunderstand aspect as tense.

The ambiguity we're discussing here, I believe, has more to do with the verb {lo'}.  Are
we talking about your use in general, or a specific instance of your using {pat}.  I
interpreted it as your use in general, which, if completed, *would* preclude using it
again (otherwise, it wouldn't be completed, would it?)  If you're talking about some
specific instance of your use of the word {pat}, that would be completed, but other
instances may arise at other times.  I saw nothing in your sentence to suggest you were
talking about a specific instance of your use of {pat}.

I understand Klingon aspect.  I can use it correctly with great regularity.  I do not need
to read a book by experts in the field to further my understanding of Klingon aspect.  (I
am too busy working on my dissertation, which, by the way, is in the field of
linguistics.)  On the other hand, you continue to use and talk about Klingon aspect
markers in a way that suggests that you do not understand their use.  Until you get what
TKD says, I submit that reading expert texts on aspect will not clarify your
understanding, but confuse it more.

> peHruS

-- Holtej 'utlh

tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ

Back to archive top level