tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 04 21:59:18 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect
In a message dated 3/4/1999 9:06:29 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< >I've been hoping that the aspect marker {-taH} does not mean that the
>absolutely must be perpetual, just ongoing. But, how do you KNOW?
How do we KNOW? TKD page 43:
| The suffix {-taH} "continuous" can be used whether there is a
| known goal or not.
>Still, if I say: {qaStaHvIS vagh jajmey, matlhutlhtaH}, would not the
Klingon
>inference be that we drank non-stop day and night until all five days had
>passed?
I wouldn't focus on a "non-stop" idea, just an "ongoing" one. If you want
to say something about non-stop, you should probably go ahead and *say* it:
{matlhutlh 'e' wImevbe'.}
>If this is true, we have not yet settled the problem of "intermittent"
action.
To exactly what problem of "intermittent" action are you referring?
>>
============================
1) perpetual vs. continuous; non-stop vs. ongoing:
Are you just trying to see if I will get belligerent in this discussion? Or
do you misread TKD to quote to me? Or do you really misunderstand what you
are reading?
You have correctly quoted TKD p43. No problem. But, you have skirted the
issue entirely regarding KNOWing that the Aspect suffix {-taH} does or does
not mean that the ongoing action is perpetual. What we know from your quote
of TKD p43 is that the action is ongoing whether there is a known goal or not.
We still do not KNOW if the action is perpetual. charghwI's earlier message
to which I was responding implied KNOWing that the action need not be
perpetual.
2) Maybe your just trying to test me. On this listserv there have been many
messages about "intermittent" action. Some talked about the answer being
{-taHbe'}. A lot of these messages appeared shortly after HolQeD 6.4. Dec.
1997. (See pp2-7).
peHruS