[Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes

[Robyn Stewart]

At 20:46 '?????' 6/16/2012, David Trimboli wrote:
>On 6/16/2012 9:36 PM, Qov wrote:
>>
>>At 19:16 '?????' 6/16/2012, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
>>>On Jun 16, 2012, at 12:10 PM, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>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.
>
>But we do know that Okrand himself didn't write the whole thing, or 
>which parts he did write, correct?

Right, he deliberately didn't tell us, because he didn't want us to 
be influenced because we were correcting *his* work. There wasn't a 
marked style change from section to section that I noticed, and 
presumably Marc himself had read the whole thing more than once and 
made changes that he thought were needed. We were some additional 
sets of eyes.

>And whether or not he did, we know that non-Klingons changed the 
>text to correct its errors,

We changed obvious errors: prefixes that didn't match, OVS errors, oh 
damn do I ever wish we had a video or had taken surreptitious photos. 
Will you not believe us that we consulted him on things that were 
ambiguous? He was sitting right there. I mean 'ISqu' was there. You 
KNOW how careful she is. And recall that in most cases of 
disagreement regarding aspect suffixes, you are saying that a prefix 
is required, while prevailing opinion is that it is optional, so even 
if it were charghwI' doing the editing alone, he wouldn't be deleting 
aspect prefixes.

I would remember, and would definitely have asked, had there been a 
slew of seemingly incongruous aspect suffixes.

>meaning that whatever the result it cannot be considered 
>demonstrative of perfect grammar.

It's not going to be perfect grammar however it was produced.

>(If a child in school is a lousy speller, should another child who's 
>also a lousy speller correct the first child's work, then insist 
>that the class follow the first child's work as the correct way to spell?)

Hey, Marc's not a lousy speller.

>>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'?
>
>ben law' Do'Ha' maHvo' mejlaw'pu' DaQtIq.

yIntaH, qar'a'? nuvpu' law' vIleghqa' vIneH. jInajtaH. DISvam 
qep'a'Daq qaleghqa''a'?

- Qov