[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[lojmIt tI'wI'nuv]

You are skipping over the word "usually" in your own quote and putting more weight on the statement than it can hold. You are loading it with words like "required" and "cannot".

So, if I write of my wife and say:

pIj jatlhtaH.

According to you, that's a single episode. Never mind the adverbial. I have an aspect marker, therefore I MUST be talking about a single event, right? Or if I complain that I generally don't get enough sleep because of my bad bed:

QongDaqwIjmo' not jIQongchu'ta'.

Again, you would insist that I'm talking about a specific ocurance.

I am, myself, often tempted to make generalizations about the language that just don't hold up. I understand that temptation. Meanwhile, your argument isn't working.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



On Jun 4, 2012, at 11:16 PM, David Trimboli wrote:

> On 6/4/2012 10:23 PM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv wrote:
>> 
>> While I think that all the suggestions here are good sentences
>> expressing variations on the originally stated meaning, I can't agree
>> that aspect markers explicitly and exclusively mark the difference
>> between a general tendency of an action to occur and a specific
>> instance of the action occurring. There's just no evidence that I can
>> recall for this in TKD or other canon.
> >
>> It might be kinda cool if it were true, but I doubt it's true.
>> 
>> More likely, it's like plural suffixes on nouns. Put them in if you
>> want to make a point of marking aspect, but if you leave it out, it's
>> typically not a big deal.
> 
> "The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not completed and not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things indicated by the Type 7 suffixes)." (TKD p. 40)
> 
> If an action is not marked continuous, it is not being described as an action progressing in time. If it is not marked perfective, it is not being viewed as an action that is a completed whole. Go ahead and try to describe an action that actually happened exactly once, without describing it as spread out over time or as an entire, indivisible unit.
> 
> Note that because English blends tense and aspect, you can often get different meanings from the same inflections. "I eat meat" can mean that you are in the process of eating meat during a single sitting (continuous aspect), or it can mean you have a propensity to eat meat (no aspect). It cannot mean you start and then finish eating meat during a single sitting.
> 
> Okrand tells us in TKD that the aspect suffixes are *required* if a meaning involves aspect. {Ha'DIbaH vISop} *cannot* mean you are in the process of eating meat at a single sitting, because it does not have a continuous or progress suffix. It *cannot* mean you start and then finish eating meat during a single sitting, because it does not have a perfective or accomplished suffix. It can mean things like you having a propensity to eat meat, or the idea of you eating meat, or that eating meat is habitual for you.
> 
> To repeat: to describe an action that is whole and completed, -pu' or -ta' is *required*. They are not optional. To describe an action that is an instance of a particular ongoing event, -taH or -lI' is *required*.
> 
> I describe the lack of a Type 7 suffix as "propensity," because this was an excellent explanation of exactly this situation by Stephen Pinker in his book THE STUFF OF THOUGHT. But this is just a convenient label; such verbs without Type 7 suffixes can also describes verbs that are habitual, or verbs that are generically true.
> 
> Ha'DIbaH vISop
> I have a propensity for eating meat
> I have a habit of eating meat
> it is true that I eat meat
> 
> Ha'DIbaH vISoptaH
> I am in the process of eating meat during the situation being described
> 
> Ha'DIbaH vISoppu'
> I started and finished eating meat during the situation being described
> 
> And because Klingon does not have tense marked by suffixes, these sentences could be talking about the past, present or future. Note that "occurred before the time context of the sentence" is perfect *tense*, not perfective aspect.
> 
> So yes, the canon from Okrand is right there in TKD, and it is pretty explicit.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20120605/8dbf95ec/attachment.html>