tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 12 10:52:20 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Was: RE: cha'DIch KLBC rI' BG

>I would definitely not lean heavily on a potentially obsolete rule as a
>precedent used to justify using perfective as past tense, which is what you 
>doing, whether you know it or not. Your attachment to the moment of 
>is the way you are mistakenly associating the perfective with the past 

Epiphany!  While I wasn't intentionally using {-pu'} to represent past 
tense, I have been (in general) assuming a timestamp of the time of 
utterance for all sentences without an explicit time stamp.  I must get out 
of that habit.

>Change your model of time in Klingon. It's more like American Sign 
>You give some sort of time stamp. That is now your time anchor. All 
>you express from that point forward relate to that time context unless you
>express a new time stamp. The current time context is always the most 
>expressed time stamp. You don't use the perfective to establish a time 
>You use it only to mark an exception to the time context; a brief, one-verb
>reference to an action that was complete at the time of the current time
>context set by the most recent time stamp.
>No other verb "inherits" the perfective. All verbs "inherit" the time 
>stated in the most recent time stamp.

I actually took a semester of ASL long ago, but I never thought to apply it 
to Klingon.  ASL has always kind of stood on its own my mind, aprt from 
spoken languages.  I never think to compare other languages to it (although 
I probably would if I learned any other signing languages).

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

Back to archive top level