tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 30 19:45:59 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qama'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qama'
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 22:45:46 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 01:39:53 -0800 (PST) [email protected]
wrote:
> 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.
qun qon charghwI'pu' net Sov vaj charghwI' Damoj DaneHlaw' qun
Daqonqa'lI'mo'. This is an interesting interpretation of events.
I think it was more than one example. I think that for a long
time you have persistently used the perfective as if it meant
that the action is complete relative to the time of speech
rather than relative to the time stamp. In other words, you used
it as if it were simple past tense.
Believe me, ghunchu'wI', Holtej, SuStel and I are not so prone
to agree with each other that we would get that worked up about
a single example. Also, please note that we weren't the only
ones involved in that "discussion". A number of less
experienced, but skilled Klingonists joined in, all quite
unified in a common model of how perfective works in Klingon.
And you didn't just misuse it. You misused it and quite
vociferously proclaimed that you were using it right and
everybody else was using it wrong. That's when you started
listing references to linguistic texts and referring to
conversations you've been having with linguistics professors and
comparing your linguistic experience with everybody elses
(disrespecting that we have several professional linguists on
this list). You painted yourself with a very complimentary
image, dripping in authority, using references to linguistic
authority like a politician wrapping a flag around his shoulders.
That's why you got such a loud, repeated, persistant protest
from an impressive number of different people on this list. You
give your version of history. I'll offer mine. The whole thing
is on archive if it comes down to it. I really don't think it
would serve your interests to have listed all the examples of
your using {-pu'} as if it meant simple past tense relating to
the time of speech with a time stamp you did not want the
completion preceeding. Your interpretation of {-ta'} was also
quite interesting.
Can't we just drop this instead of now trying to rewrite history
so it looks like a misguided conspiracy objected to your proper
use of the perfective? You got it wrong. It happens. Deal with
it. I was wrong about {Hoch}. I was wrong about {jaH}. We do our
best and sometimes we are wrong.
> 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.
None of that was relavent to the relationship between time stamp
and the perfective in Klingon.
> 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?
Your usage did not match what you now call your previous
understanding.
> 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?
I'm curious as to your source within TKD of this difference
between perfective aspect and perfect aspect. Why not just stop?
This is only going to erupt into another great unpleasantry.
> 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).
I do not speak Mandarin Chinese. Judging from your explanation
and your examples of how "wan" is used in Mandarin Chinese, I
have to say that "wan" is remarkably dissimilar to {-pu'}. If
you'd like to revise your earlier explanation and provide better
examples so that "wan" and {-pu'} function more similarly, I'm
quite willing to change my mind on this, but since there is only
one person I know who speaks Klingon and refuses to accept the
basic relationship between time stamps and Type 7 verb suffixes,
I don't understand why you feel you deserve all the attention
your highly unpopular interpretation yields you.
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh