tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 06 09:54:29 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Noun cases
ja' peHruS:
>My point regarding Klingon. There are so many definitions of Aspect for
>individual languages that we are going to have to determine exactly what
>Aspect is for Klingon alone.
The only definition of aspect that is relevant here is the description of
the type 7 verb suffixes given by Marc Okrand in The Klingon Dictionary.
Everyone except you seems to be able to accept what it says after only a
few attempts at understanding it and a small number of attempts at using
it and a couple of corrections to the misuse of perfective suffixes.
>The discussion so far has been productive. But,
>I would claim that it is not conclusive for me.
Then it has not been productive, since you're the only one participating
who doesn't understand what Okrand means when he says "Klingon does not
express tenses" and when he uses the words "completed" and "continuing"
(all on page 40 of The Klingon Dictionary).
> I want to see more concrete
>evidence from MO.
I think if you left behind all the baggage you're carrying with you from
Mandarin Chinese and other nominally tenseless languages you believe you
understand, you would discover that the evidence already presented goes
several notches past overwhelming.
-- ghunchu'wI'