At 19:16 '?????' 6/16/2012, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 12:10 PM, "De'vID" <[email protected]> wrote:> What would be a counterexample to his (and my) interpretation of the sentence from TKD p.40 about the meaning of a verb when a Type 7 suffix is absent is an instance from canon of a verb expressing a perfective or continuous aspect but which does not have the corresponding suffix. And I don't think there's any such example from canon.I can think of one immediately: {nughoS jagh} from the Conversational Klingon battle vignette.
That's a good one, but being in battle it could arguably be said to be clipped.
(The abundant paq'batlh examples are apparently tainted by having been read before publication by a group that did not include SuStel, so I won't detail them here.)
yIvaqQo'. But let it be asked: does anyone recall deleting or changing aspect suffixes as we worked? As I said before, I don't remember doing it.
I think it's telling that the people who are most influenced by this idea are the ones who speak or have studied another language that uses perfective aspect. DaQtIq, bISaHtaH'a'?
- Qov
_______________________________________________ Tlhingan-hol mailing list [email protected] http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol