tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 21 21:05:13 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect
In a message dated 3/21/99 10:57:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< > Referring back to my college linguistics courses textbooks have helped me
> tremendously in understanding MO's understanding. >>
You actually went to college? I thought you were in middle school by your
grasp of Klingon and its subtleties. I got the point behind Type 7 Verb
suffixes after merely reading the section. Maybe it is more difficult than
just reading it. It wasn't for me.
>Remarkable. You assail one of the clearest, most skilled speakers on this
list because he lacks a professional source for his understanding.
Meanwhile, your nearly DECADE of linguistics courses serve only to confuse
you and make your Klingon incoherent.
I find it highly unlikely that peHruS has taken a decade of linguistics. His
grasp of Klingon borders on that of a sixth or fifth grade level of English
terms and usage.
>> This is the very reason we need to learn well what
>> "perfective" really means. TKD's explanations are not enough.
Get over it. TKD describes the grammar as is. If you don't like it, tough.
>Meanwhile, you are the only one for whom TKD's descriptions of Klingon
grammar are not enough. Well, that's not really true; there are many points
of Klingon grammar that are not clear, and we are still struggling to
understand. But aspect isn't one of them. You alone seem to fail to
understand. That is, you alone persist in failing to understand. Most
people who are starting out with the language stumble at this point, because
it's so unlike English. But they try, they get corrected, they practice
some more, and then the get it and move on.
Aspect is quite easy, especially since there is no tense. Action is complete
or not - goal/intent or none. peHruS, you should really READ the TKD. READ
TKD! It clearly describes Klingon sense of action in Type 7 suffixes.
Completion or not in completion. Intentional or not. Known goal or no known
goal. No big deal. It's not that hard. You seem to be the only one who
persists in this argument. You even tried to say that the prefix ju- didn't
indicate subject-object and that in the phrase "Dalegh" that there was no
subject. bInuQ; ghIlab ghew Darur.
>Get it and move on.
Well said. jatlhchu'pu'.
> peHruS
>-- Holtej 'utlh
>tlhIngan-Hol Mailing List FAQ:
>http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
T'Lod