tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 04 20:52:13 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect
In a message dated 3/4/1999 2:17:44 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< Also, the "... but won't keep on seeing him for long" doesn't really
follow.
<-lI'> means progress toward a goal, but that goal does not have to be in
the immediate future. I have a coworker who built a plane (yes, a real, full
sized airplane). When he started, he had no idea how long it would take, and
it wound up taking about two years. During that time, I could obviously say
<muDDuj chenmoHtaH>, but I could also more accurately say <muDDuj
chenmoHlI'>. Three months into the project, completion was not iminent - he
still didn't even know how long it would take - but he was progressing
toward the goal.
>>
============================
So, as {-lI'} is an Aspect suffix, is it at all like the Progressive? Or is
it similar to the Imperfective?
I have had interviews with three more erudite professors of linguistics this
week. All have concurred that languages which use aspect instead of tense
also have a way of showing certain recurrent parallels, comparisons of the
opposite nature.
Meanwhile, since {-choH} and {-qa'} are not Aspect suffixes in Klingon, they
must not be the portions of Aspect known as Ingressive and Iterative.
Could the Imperfective be solved by {-pu'be'}? Obviously {-pu'Ha'} is not the
answer;
{-Ha'} can only "undo" the verb stem itself, not a suffix.
peHruS