tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 04 21:06:27 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect
In a message dated 3/4/1999 4:51:04 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< > 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. >>
==============================
If the suffixes act in pairs and as counterparts, we have more of a matrix of
Aspect terms as I studied them in my linguistics courses from 1973-1981.
{-pu'} = perfective. No problem. TKD says "perfective."
{-ta'} = imperfective. ????????? TKD does not use the word "imperfective."
{-taH} = progressive. Well, may be. And on the "perfective" side of things.
{-lI'} = progressive. Again, may be. And on the "imperfective" side of
things.
But, and a very big but: MO has only clearly stated that the "perfective"
terminology applies to Aspect in Klingon. Perhaps, the other three aspect
suffixes do not fit any classical definition of aspect at all. If this is
true, I, at least, need lots of examples from MO himself to see the intricate
differences. After all, all I ever studied is how aspect applies to Earth
languages, in a classical sense, and with an emphasis for seeing how Mandarin
uses aspect, and how other languages differ (Descriptive Linguistics courses).
peHruS