tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 05 09:52:42 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Aspect
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:52:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 21:18:44 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
> 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."
Okrand gives us an example using {-ta'} and tells us that if the
action were not intentional, we should use {-pu'} instead. From
this, you somehow decide to call {-ta'} "imperfective". I think
you have not nearly justified this.
You are not just pushing a round peg into a square hole. You are
squeezing a BALL into a square hole. If I try to classify things
as "tall" or "short" which category should I use for "water"?
Okrand's aspect suffixes simply don't fit your matrix. Deal with
it.
> {-taH} = progressive. Well, may be. And on the "perfective" side of things.
> {-lI'} = progressive. Again, may be. And on the "imperfective" side of
> things.
Who said that Okrand's language had to jump through your hoops?
> 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).
In other words, Okrand has to kiss your butt, or his language
doesn't count.
Why don't you go study Pakled?
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh