tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 07 12:02:33 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: Aspect (was RE: KLBC-Fr.)

On Monday, September 06, 1999 9:04 PM,
[] wrote:

> In a message dated 8/24/1999 11:37:07 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
> writes:
> << I don't know what "imperfective" is in the context of the Klingon
>  I would merely say that an action that is not completed is not
>  Bringing in an extra-TKD term seems likely to cause more confusion than
>  can clear up. >>
> =================
> Aspect has two states:  perfective and imperfective.  These two states
> in opposition.  qechvam qellaw' TKD 'ach 'angchu'be'.  ngaSbe'mo' TKD, 
> qechvam Dalajbe'mo', HItIchqa'Qo'!  jIHvaD aspect DaghojmoH 'e' yInIDQo'!

> 'ej qul yIbaHtaHQo'!  bIghoH 'e' DatIv 'ach vItIvbe'.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see anything in ghunchu'wI''s
post that is insulting or would resemble {qul baHlu'bogh}.  I don't think
Alan is discussing this point to be argumentative, I think he's discussing
it to help clear things up.  And he's right, using terminology that's not
defined in TKD *can* cause confusion (though it need not).

For instance, aspect has, in Klingon, three types (not two states):
perfective, continuous, and none at all.  Using a term like "imperfective"
in the context of Klingon is not discussed in TKD, and may cause confusion.
For instance, if it's not perfective, then you still have two choices,
between continuous or none at all.  Which is "imperfective"?  Both?  Before
you consider answering this question, I submit that the question is
ill-formed, because "imperfective" is undefined in Klingon.  We have
terminology that is clearly defined to discuss aspect in Klingon (and other
grammatical features), and we should use it.  If we have to start each
discussion by defining our terms, just for the sake of using terms that are
not defined in TKD, I'm not sure we gain anything.  Maybe we do in some
cases, but it doesn't seem like we're gaining anything in this case.

I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes by getting involved in this
conversation, I sure don't mean to.  It's not my intent to be insulting,
argumentative, or rude (not while speaking English, anyway.  ;)   But I do
think you've accused Alan of something without justification here.  Don't
read more into the words than is necessary.

> peHruS

--Holtej 'utlh

tlhIngan Hol mailing list FAQ

Back to archive top level