tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 30 01:07:50 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qama'
In a message dated 3/26/1999 10:34:57 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< You were waging war you
obviously couldn't win. You had no allies because everyone, from
the most experienced speakers to moderately talented beginners
could see that your perspective was fundamentally flawed on how
Aspect worked in Klingon and how four specific suffixes were to
be used. >>
=====================
I was using Aspect exactly according to the examples given in TKD until
ghunchu'wI' said that Holtej, charghwI' and SuStel all agreed that I had
misused it one time in conjuction with a time stamp. Then, I wanted to know
why ghunchu'wI' could claim that the "group" knew something I did not yet
know. From where did ghunchu'wI' get this additional information regarding
"perfective" that was beyond what I had read in TKD? Why did "everyone else"
have this understanding of perfective other than what TKD explains? So, I
looked back into my college linguistics course books regarding Aspect and came
up with some amazing discoveries that TKD's explanations are not in accord
with the classical meanings of Aspect.
In that I have agreed to GO BACK to my understanding of Aspect for Klingon
using only TKD and all examples we can find in canon usage, we should have no
further disagreement, right?
Now, ghunchu'wI' will not have to claim that I have "pluperfected" a verb by
putting
{-pu'} onto it. Unlike "perfective" in its classical sense in OTHER
languages, where it does not merely mean "completion," we will not have to
worry about combinations with time stamps, for the so-called completion is
able to occur during any such time period as stamped. People who understand
perfective aspect, especially as differentiated from perfect aspect, will see
the difference; but, we will use TKD's perfective and leave it at that. Okay?
Neither will ghunchu'wI' be able to accuse me of MIS-thinking that Chinese's
{wan} is unlike tlhIngan Hol's {-pu'}. It turns out that they work exactly
the same way after all. He was way too hasty in that accusation. Of course,
{wan} is only perfective if used in conjunction with {le}, {liao}, {je}, {ne},
etc. Elsewise it is perfect aspect (not tense).
peHruS