tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 21 16:35:28 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect
I find myself unable to ignore this. You've falsely accused me of two
things, as well as misquoting The Klingon Dictionary and claiming that
it both says things it does not, and does not say things it does.
As much as I hate keeping this argument going, I must defend the truth.
I can only hope you're not intentionally misstating things just to get
some sort of attention. I'm sending it privately rather than to the
mailing list, because I do not wish to contribute further to what has
become a major source of bad feelings about the list lately.
>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!
First, there is no section 4.7 in The Klingon Dictionary. You obviously
mean 4.2.7.
Second, are you even reading my words before disagreeing with them? Look up
at the message you quoted. See where I said {mu'meyvam lo'bej TKD}? Your
insistence in response that I "admit" what I just wrote is extremely poor
debating form.
>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 4.2.7 explains exactly what it means by aspect and perfective. What is
meant by aspect and perfective outside the Klingon language is irrelevant.
>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.
You're not looking very hard, then. TKD 4.2.7 says, right there in the
very definition of the suffix {-pu'}: "It is often translated by the
English present perfect (have done something)." The only place TKD says
anything about translating into past tense is on page 66, when it tells
us that the past tense *in one specific translation* comes from the use
of the perfective suffix. It never says that the perfective suffix is
used to *indicate* past tense.
>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.
If you missed Okrand's definition of perfective as referring to a completed
action, then something is seriously wrong with either your eyesight or your
reading comprehension. That is my honest assessment of the situation, and
it is reinforced by your constant failure to address things clearly stated,
not to mention your continual denial of having said things that were most
definitely said by you.
>In conclusion, we do need to understand the correct meaning of Aspect to
>understand how Klingon uses it.
I can use the type 7 verb suffixes perfectly with only the information given
in section 4.2.7 of The Klingon Dictionary. If someone misunderstands the
idea of "completed action" and thinks simple past tense fits the concept,
he should easily correct that misunderstanding with the examples in the
audiotapes which clearly show that past tense does *not* get indicated
using perfective. Why do you refuse to accept the obvious? Why do you
keep insisting that other languages' use of aspect is important to the way
Klingon uses it? Why do you keep going off on tangents whenever someone
presents a clear and unambiguous example of how Klingon uses aspect? I'm
baffled, frustrated, and increasingly astonished at the level of confusion
you manage to maintain in the face of such powerful explanations.
>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!!!
What the hell is your problem? As you pointed out to me, the words are
there in black and white. Turn to page 41 of The Klingon Dictionary. Read
along with me at the top of the page:
-pu' perfective
This suffix indicates that an action is completed.
I am *NOT* wrong. I am one hundred percent right. I can't begin to know
why you reject what TKD says in so many cases. I can't come close to any
understanding of why you so often insist on contradicting Okrand.
>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.
Please. I am imploring you, seriously, as someone who is really concerned
about your attitude toward understanding language -- STOP. Stop looking to
other sources to try to understand what Marc Okrand means when he uses terms
like "perfective" and "adverbial" and "subject" and "pronoun". Look instead
at what Marc Okrand himself says he means by those terms. He was in a much
better position to understand his meaning when he wrote them than you are.
--
Alan Anderson, professional programmer and amateur Klingonist
proud member of the Klingon Language Institute since 1995
qo'mey poSmoH Hol -- language opens worlds -- /