tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 01 09:57:46 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Definition of Aspect
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Definition of Aspect
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 12:57:37 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
Oh good. Dueling dictionaries.
On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:23:04 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
> Webster's dictionary defines "aspect": a form of the ver expressing
> inception, duration or completion of the action.
Concise Oxford defines "aspect": verbal category or form
expressing inception, duration, or completion
I still like my dictionary better.
> Webster's dictionary defines "perfective": of a verbal aspect which expresses
> a completed action or state.
COD: Expressing completion of action (opp. imperfective).
Pretty much the same. Still, so long as you don't consider this
to be the meaning relating to TENSE, which gives you the time
setting at which the aspect tells you whether or not the action
is complete, I see no problem here. You apparently don't
understand time stamps.
> Okay, let's assume Webster's dictionary publishers were not thinking about
> Klingon when they wrote those definitions. Safe assumption, I think. Let's
> reiterate that Klingon is not like English. Klingon is not just like any
> language we have encountered before. Klingon cannot be defined merely using
> Earth terminology.
Well, I don't think you need to go that far, but I think it is
good to stop yourself when you want to attach yourself to one
interpretation of something in Klingon for no reason other than
because that's the way some other language does it.
Still, if you can separate the concept of tense from aspect, the
given definitions for aspect and perfective make total sense in
Klingon.
> TKD p40, section 4.2.7 defines "aspect": Klingon does not express tenses
> (past, present, future). These ideas come across from context or other words
> in the sentence (such as {wa'leS} [tomorrow]). The language does, however,
> indicate aspect: whether an action is completed or not yet completed, and
> whether an action is a single event or a continuing one.
Right. You have context, which provides a time stamp; a time
setting. The verb is expressed in relationship to that time
setting. Aspect tells you the degree to which WITHIN THAT TIME
SETTING the action is complete.
wa'Hu' DungluQ jupwI' vIghom.
I met my friend yesterday at noon.
Within the time context of the sentence (yesterday, noon), the
action occurred. No perfective is called for.
wa'Hu' DungluQ jupwI' vIghompu'.
Yesterday at noon, I had met my friend.
Within the time context of the sentence (yesterday, noon) the
action had already been completed.
> The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not completed
> and is not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things indicated by the
> Type 7 suffixes). Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are translated by the English
> simple present tense.
He offers other example where such a verb would be translated as
simple past or simple future tense as well, depending on the
time stamp. He does this rather explicitly on CK when he gives
the examples:
wa'Hu' jIghung. Yesterday, I was hungry.
DaHjaj jI''oj. Today, I am thirsty.
wa'leS jIDoy'. Tomorrow, I will be tired.
> "perfective": {-pu'} [perfective]
> This suffix indicates that an action is completed. It is often translated by
> the English present perfect [have done something].
Again, the time stamp may change this to past perfect or future
perfect. The important thing to understand here is that context
provides the "tense" or time stamp or time setting or whatever
you want to call it. Then, relating to that time setting, you
use Type 7 suffixes to tell the degree of completion of the verb.
If the focus of your statement is that the action is continuing
with no real reference to a beginning or an end, use {-taH}. If
there is a foreseeable goal or conclusion, but within the time
setting of the sentence, the action continues, use {-lI'}. If
the action is already complete at the time setting of the
sentence, use {-pu'}. If you want to use {-pu'} but add the
connotation that the action was intentional and the completion
of the action marked an accomplishment for the subject of the
action, use {-ta'}.
Does this make sense yet?
> -----------------------
>
> For those of you who have further information from Marc Okrand regarding the
> proper use of aspect, please tell me what you know. How did you come by this
> information? What were the results of your interviews? Where did the results
> get published.
Listen to CK for the way time stamps give tense information.
I've been to a couple public presentations Okrand has made where
he made this pretty clear, though I'm not sure they were ever
published. I've personally talked with him about this and he was
quite clear about it. We also talked about the language being
intentionally built to not have the verb "to be". That's about
all I've had the pleasure of talking with him about outside of
things that have been published.
If you don't get HolQeD, I can highly recommend that you start,
and get back issues if possible. I have every issue so far,
being one of the proud few who subscribed in time to receive
Volume 1, Number 1.
> I looked for the FAQ ghunchu'wI' says he wrote. I found only an FAQ by
> D'Armand Speers on tlhIngan Hol. I did find several other FAQs regarding
> Klingons, but not about tlhIngan Hol.
d'Armond's FAQ quotes several people in his answers.
{ghunchu'wI'} was one of those quoted in that FAQ in the area of
perfective. It has been a long time since I've looked at it, but
I think I'm quoted there some as well.
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh