tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Mar 05 11:21:51 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Aspect
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Aspect
- Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:24:39 -0700
jatlh peHruS:
>>>>>
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).
>>>>>
<-ta'> is "perfective", just like <-pu'>. It means *exactly* the same thing,
but it also says the subject intentionally set out to complete the action.
It is pefective plus intent. Klingon could get along fine without it, using
<chIch X-pu'> instead, but the concept of intentional completion is
apparently useful enough to merit its own suffix.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian