[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: rIQ

[Brent Kesler]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm at kth.se> wrote:

>  I'm not that good at linguistics jargon, myself, but do I take it that
> the distinction you see is that -lI' should involve doing something
> actively, wherefore rIQ would [in most cases] not be used with -lI'?
>

Here's are some example sentences for how I understand -lI' and -taH.

1. veng ghoStaH ghotpu'.
2. veng ghoSlI' ghotpu'.

3. Duj tI'taH jonpIn.
4. Duj tI'lI' jonpIn.

I interpret #1 as meaning that people are always coming to the city. Maybe
it's New York or veng wa'DIch--a big city that always has people going in
and out.

In interpet #2 as meaning that some people are on their way to the city.
They left some time ago, and they're haven't arrived yet, but they will
eventually.

In #3, the engineer is always fixing the ship. There's always something
broken on the ship, so the engineer is always fixing something. That's his
job--it doesn't end. In #4, there is some damage he is fixing and
eventually he will finish. Maybe he's repairing the warp core and the ship
can't move until he's done.

In other words, the progressive (-lI') is used for an action that *unfolds*
over a period of time with a definite beginning and a definite end. The
continuous (-taH) is used for an action that happens over a period of time
without a definite beginning or end.

I don't want to use -lI' with rIQ because I see rIQ as a state rather than
a process that unfolds over time. Either you are  injured or you're not. It
may be temporary, ie, have a definite end, but it doesn't *unfold* over
time.


I'm sure someone will dispute my interpretation, though.

bI'reng
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20120202/f6785fd1/attachment.html>