tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 04 15:34:21 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: Aspect
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: Aspect
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 18:34:19 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:25:09 -0800 (PST) TPO <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> -lI' implies that there is a goal. Progress is being made toward that
> >goal.
> >> It is not simply that 'taH is continuous and -lI' has an ending.
> >> -taH is continuous whether there is a known goal or not. -lI' can be used
> >> only when there is an implied goal.
> >
> >bIlughqa'. I would like to clarify a little bit here. TKD says that the
> >activity has "a know goal or a definite stopping point", and uses the word
> >"goal" through the rest of the text. This strongly indicates that the "goal"
> >is not necessarily something anyone set out intentionally to do - it's just
> >the logical conclusion of the action. This opens <-lI'> up to a wider range
> >of usage than <-ta'>.
>
> I disagree. How can you unintentionally have a goal. A "goal" is your
> "intention". You said yourself "...and uses the word "goal" through the
> rest of the text." If the act was "the logical conclusion of the action"
> and was not intentional, I think you should use -taH, as it is stated in TKD.
And I disagree with your disagreement. "a known goal OR A
DEFINITE STOPPING POINT". I agree that {-lI'} is happiest when
applied to intentional goals, and Okrand definitely had {-ta'}
in mind when he created {-lI'}, but I've heard him describe that
its meaning does stretch a little farther than that. A meteor
can have a target even if nobody is aiming it, and a target is a
goal. If the end of an action is clearly foreseeable, even
unavoidable, then you don't have to have intent for {-lI'} to be
applicable.
> TKD p42 & 43
> "-lI' in progress
>
> This suffix is similar to -taH (continuous) in that it indicates that an
> activity is ongoing. Unlike -taH, however, -lI' implies that the activity
> has a known goal or a definite stopping point. In other words, it suggests
> that progress is being made toward that goal.
"or a definite stopping point". That phrase is very inconvenient
to your argument.
> chollI' it is getting closer
> (chol get close, come near)
>
> This word would be used for, i.e., a missile approaching a target, when it
> is known that the missile has been aimed at that target. If a missile is
> getting closer, but its intended destination is not known, choltaH (with
> -taH continuous) would be more appropriate.
Again, such a missile lacks both a known goal AND a known
stopping point.
> vIlI'lI' I am transmitting (the data)
> (lI' transmit data to a place)
>
> This word implies that data are in the process of being transmitted, but
> that there is a finite amount of data, so there will be a definite end to
> the transmission. The fact that the verb lI' and the suffix -lI' are
> identical in sound is purely coincidental, so far as can be determined.
Note that the description says nothing about the end of the data
being intentional. It just says there is a finite amount of
data, so in essence, it has a definite stopping point.
> The suffix -taH (continuous) can be used whether there is a known goal or
> not. -lI', on the other hand, can be used only when there is an implied
> goal. It is possible to consider -lI' a [continuous] counterpart of -ta',
> and -taH a [continuous] counterpart of -pu'."
This is certainly the strongest part of your argument.
Meanwhile, I honestly believe that Okrand has simply opened up
the range of acceptable meaning of {-lI'} beyond this highly
restricted meaning, and there is justification for it earlier in
the text you've quoted.
> -----------------------------------
>
> DloraH
charghwI' 'utlh