[Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv]

I'm sure I'm seen as one of the bad guys here in terms of the "sometimes heated argument". Please respect that I didn't leap into that unprovoked. My last post wouldn't have happened at all if I hadn't been effectively dee-double-dared to present evidence from TKD that Klingon doesn't work precisely the way SuStel insists it does.

So, I presented evidence, and instead of addressing the rather strong evidence that Okrand doesn't use the perfective the way SuStel still insists it has to be used, I'm still obliquely referred to as one of the ignorant fools that cause him to blow his top and cause him to wonder why he should participate.

He demanded that I put up or shut up. I put up. So far, he hasn't done either.

So, I guess that if he keeps talking as if I'd never answered the challenge, then he wins, right?

When he noticed inconsistencies, he tried to make up special rules, like immovable objects don't use {-taH} while moveable ones do, and then when it was pointed out that this wasn't consistent either, the response was basically, "Good eye to spot that. So I guess that's not a good new rule after all." But nothing new to explain why the use of Type 7 is so inconsistent in TKD.

When I say {tlhIngan maH}, I don't need to add {-taH} because context makes it pretty obvious. When I say {pa'Daq jIHtaH}, the context is less obvious, so I make a point of adding {-taH} to let you know that I'm still there. The Type 7 is very useful and should be used when it clarifies things. But it really is optional, and leaving it off really doesn't imply anything about things being discontinuous or incomplete.

Okrand did describe the rules otherwise, but he doesn't follow his own rule there. It's a weak rule and we shouldn't take it too seriously. He says that when there's no Type 7 suffix it "usually" indicates a lack of continuity or completion, but if you look at how he writes examples in TKD, it doesn't back up the rule. There are a lot more exceptions than examples that follow this rule.

And there aren't examples of him using the perfective to refer to whole acts OR descriptions of how the rule works that way. That's an idea that has begun and ended outside of TKD or other canon. Okrand never addressed the idea that a time stamp has a duration. We've talked about it here in KLI, but I don't think Okrand has ever addressed it. It's not addressed in TKD.

So the heat in this argument is all about presumption based upon artificial authority. SuStel is an expert in the Klingon language. One of the best in the world.

Inconveniently, so am I. So is Krankor. So is ghunchu'wI'. So is Qov. I mean no disrespect by not mentioning others. Many of us here, and some no longer here are experts in the language.

The problem is that from time to time one of us steps a bit too far, declaring that the rest of us are wrong and they alone have it right. This feels like one of those cases, and the authority on which SuStel bases his argument doesn't seem to have anything to do with TKD or other canon. He has not shown canon making it clear that perfective involves whole spans of action from beginning to end. There are a lot of examples in TKD that don't follow that new perspective. Most of them, in fact. Maybe all.

So, with no intended insult or tumult, I simply wish to say that I'm convinced that SuStel lacks the authority he claims in this specific area of Klingon grammar.

He's still an expert. He still deserves respect. He just doesn't deserve everybody deciding that the language doesn't work the way we thought it did, and now we all have to think of it his way.

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
lojmIttI7wI7nuv at gmail.com



On Jun 8, 2012, at 10:36 AM, David Trimboli wrote:

> On 6/8/2012 3:16 AM, Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh wrote:
>> 
>> I've been largely staying out of this argument for a number of reasons, mainly the
>> fact that it's got heated more than once and I'm not up for a seriously protracted
>> argument. However, there's one minor tangential point that canon doesn't back up.
>> 
>> ghItlhpu' SuStel, jatlh:
>>> puchpa'Daq jIHtaH
>>> I was in the bathroom.
>>> I was inhabiting the bathroom over a span of time.
>>> **Note that whenever Okrand uses -Daq<pro>  to describe the location of
>>> a movable object, he uses {-taH}, whereas whenever he describes the
>>> location of a permanent object he uses no aspect suffix.**
>> 
>> Not quite "whenever".
> 
> [snip examples]
> 
> Good catches. I had a feeling things weren't as simple as that in the locative-and-pronouns.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol