tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 06 09:52:32 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect
ja' peHruS:
>Where do you get the authority to say that "If ... ... the verb does not
>posses the perfective quality, so the <> {-ta'} suffix<> is [replaces "are"]
>not appropriate."? Not from TKD. Although TKD clearly places {-ta'} in the
>section entitled Aspect, and says in black and white that it is similar to
>{-pu'}, nowhere I read does it say that it is a "perfective." It uses Klingon
>grammarians terminology; it is the Aspect known as "accomplished, done." TKD
>p41.
[SFX: clearing throat]
TKD clearly says that {-pu'} and {-ta'} express the same aspect, with the
additional meaning of intentional action going along with {-ta'}. They
are both perfective. There is no reason for you to dispute this fact.
>The pairing with {-pu'} "perfective" is there. But, the definition of {-ta'}
>does not classify it as a "perfective." You alone are doing that.
I am not alone. Every other moderately skilled speaker of Klingon in the
known universe understands {-ta'} as perfective. You alone do not. I do
not know why you fail to understand what TKD says...nor do I care.
-- ghunchu'wI'