tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 09 21:02:51 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect
In a message dated 3/5/1999 12:28:18 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< <-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. >>
==========
This looks good, considering that MO's explanation for {-ta'} does say it
works the way {-pu'} does except that intentionality is included. This makes
{-ta' } perfective also, even though the word is not used. I can accept this
gladly.
I still look as {-taH} and {-lI'} as continuous forms of imperfective aspect.
The difference here is whether there is a goal. Although this does not even
touch on the other forms of imperfectives available to many languages, I can
accept that Klingon just does not need to be concerned with them in the
section entitled Aspect. There is the possibility that {-choH} and {-qa'}
could cover some of these concepts; of course, Klingon grammarians would not
consider them Aspect since they are not in section 4.2.7.
This does give Klingon areas of difference from the Earth languages I have
studied in linguistics courses and for living language. Okay. I accept this
much.
I did look up MO's uses of {-pu'} in TKD, TKW, and KGT. There aren't more
than about a dozen; and, all are in the non-periphrastic perfective. If you
can show me examples of sentences MO has written which also include a time
word or similar adverbial, I welcome seeing them. Meanwhile, the whole
discussion about Aspect began because ghunchu'wI' said I, peHruS, misused it
with a past-time reference. cannot find an example of canon with both a past-
time reference and a perfective. Please show me some. Elsewise I will have
to suspect that ghunchu'wI' has determined what such a construction would mean
without any basis, just as he must have done in making up the word "adject."
I have searched linguistics-specific dictionaries, asked professors and deans
of linguistics schools, and consulted the internet linguistics listserv in
vain for this word. That's why I think ghunchu'wI' just makes things up to
get Klingonists to kiss his ass, not mine.
peHruS