tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 06 09:55:05 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ghunchu'wI'
muqaD peHruS:
>ghunchu'wI', yIqIm!
>
>TKD p40. Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are translated by the English simple
>present tense.
>
>I point out that such sentences are "translated by the English" and that this
>does not mean that the Klingon verbs suddenly may be considered to BE simple
>present tense.
Agreed. Why would you set up a straw man like that? One of the recurring
motifs in the past few weeks is that Klingon verbs *have* *no* *tense*!
>When I presented Mandarin verbs with perfective aspect, I
>merely showed that different languages translate them into their own languages
>in a particular manner. I never attempted to show that the Mandarin aspect
>suddenly IS both tense and aspect.
Nor did I claim that it was. I merely pointed out that you said two things
that I still consider to be blatantly contradictory:
1: There is no way perfective and past tense mean the same thing.
2: The Mandarin "-wan" is translated as either past tense or perfective.
Apparently you interpret a phrase differently based on whether you say it
or someone else does. When you *say* "is translated by", you don't mean
"is". When you *read* "is translated as", you assume it means "is". If
you're not going to be consistent in your use of English terms, I'm not
surprised we're having so much trouble with your use of Klingon ones.
-- ghunchu'wI'