tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 21 10:49:22 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect
In a message dated 3/18/1999 8:59:53 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<<
>peqIm! Dap 'oHbe'bej. potlh pab QIjbogh TKD, 'ach pabvetlh mu'mey
>boyajchu'be'chugh, bolo'Ha'laH. SuyajmeH potlhqu' Sovvam 'angbogh HolQeD
>luqelbogh paqmey. loQ QIj TKD 'ach yapbe'.
Qo'! latlh Hal DabuSchugh, ghaytan yapHa'qu' Halvetlh.
All this talk of "imperfective" and "durative" and the like has
*absolutely* *nothing* to do with Klingon grammar. Focusing on
what standard linguistic texts have to say about English grammar
has obviously caused much more confusion than it has cleared up.
>mu' {perfective} mu' {aspect} je yajbe' ghunchu'wI' 'e' vIHar, vaj lo'Ha'.
wejpuH. mu'meyvam lo'bej TKD, 'ej TKD lo''e' vIyajchu'. lo'vetlh vIpab.
English HolQeD paq lo'Hey vISaHbe' jay'. "aspect" "perfective" je QIjchu'
TKD. yapbe' TKD mu'mey 'e' DaHar SoH neH...'ej bImujchu'.
>wanI'vam vIlughmoHmeH mu'meyvam vIQIjmeH latlh mungmey law' vIlI'. chaq
tugh
>DIyaj Hoch.
chaq tugh wa' ngoD potlhqu' DayajchoH SoH: ramchu' mu'meyvam mung.
The Klingon Dictionary was explicitly *not* written for linguists. When it
uses an unfamiliar term like "aspect", it defines it for the reader. For
the purposes of Section 4.7, aspect is defined thus:
"...aspect: whether an action is completed or not yet completed,
and whether an action is a single event or a continuing one."
That's all it means. Bringing in Trask's commentary serves absolutely no
useful purpose for helping anyone understand aspect in Klingon grammar.
The simple single-sentence explanation in The Klingon Dictionary, along
with a few examples like {ghorgh tujchoHpu' bIQ}, is more than adequate.
-- ghunchu'wI' >>
=======================
TKD 4.7 DOES use the words "aspect," "perfective" and "continuous." Admit it.
The words are there in black and white!
TKD 4.7 DOES NOT explain clearly the proper use of these words. It gives very
few examples. Thanks to voragh and some persons who have provided me with the
sentences in which MO has used Aspect, I realize that Okrand does have a
deeper understanding of Aspect than he has revealed in TKD.
TKD 4.7 says that "perfective" OFTEN translates into English as simple past
tense. What about the times it does not translate as simple past tense. TKD
does not explain this, that I can find. I have had to look at MO's canon
relevations to attempt to understand when "perfective" means much more.
Referring back to my college linguistics courses textbooks have helped me
tremendously in understanding MO's understanding.
In conclusion, we do need to understand the correct meaning of Aspect to
understand how Klingon uses it. Your claim that you can use it without
understanding what it really means from professional sources, but from TKD's
scant usage and explanations alone, are not only risky, but in some ways
outright wrong. I have noted that you might think {-pu'} refers to
completion. WRONG!!! This is the very reason we need to learn well what
"perfective" really means. TKD's explanations are not enough. We must study
MO's sentences using Aspect. We may need many more of his accurate sentences.
As we get a larger sampling, we all can be more accurate.
peHruS