tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 03 19:28:45 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Placement of aspect suffixes
I still hold some hope of coming up with something that will explain the
difference between past tense and perfective aspect adequately. I don't
know why nothing so far has worked, but I see a glimmer of willingness to
pay attention now.
ja' peHruS:
>I definitely should not have put (perfective) inside parentheses right after
>saying "past tense." There is no way they mean the same thing. I meant to
>say: When Mandarin uses {-wan} "finish," it comes across in English as "past
>tense" and in Slavonic languages and dialects as "perfective."
1: There is no way perfective and past tense mean the same thing.
2: The Mandarin "-wan" is translated as either past tense or perfective.
You don't see a contradiction here?
Please, PLEASE look at that last sentence of yours and look at how you are
tangling together the ideas of tense and aspect. Mandarin Chinese seems to
use its "finish" particle for either idea. English can express very similar
ideas using either present perfective or simple past. But based on several
explicit explanations given by Marc Okrand in print and audiotapes and in
person, Klingon just does not use perfective when the idea being expressed
is a simple past action. I can think of only one example of a perfective
aspect suffix used on a past tense idea in canon: {X ben vIboghpu'.} It
*can* be translated smoothly as simple past, but it makes total sense when
interpreted as past perfect.
>Furthermore, this was extracted from an argument about "pluperfect" versus
>"perfective" with or without the proper time stamp. Some member of the
>argument had claimed that putting time stamp indicating prior time AND a
>"perfective" in the same sentence meant "had done" rather than "have done." I
>did not think so. I said I did not think so.
You have implied many times that you think perfective in the past does not
imply pluperfect. You have composed Klingon sentences that go along with
that interpretation. Now you are being explicit in your belief that there
is something special about perfective aspect that nullifies the past tense,
or something special about past tense that nullifies the perfective aspect.
But you're still just *stating* it, while giving absolutely no justification
for it. Can you give us some sort of explanation for *why* you think that
"past" and "perfect" together do not mean "past perfect"? If we can find a
crucial missing piece of information or incorrect assumption, maybe we can
all start using the same interpretation of grammar and thus be better able
to communicate without misunderstanding.