[tlhIngan Hol] As soon as I had tickled the dog

Lieven levinius at gmx.de
Mon Aug 22 09:26:56 PDT 2016

Am 22.08.2016 um 17:38 schrieb SuStel:

> This is not true. By omitting an aspect suffix, you are explicitly
> saying that the action is not complete and not continuous. You cannot do
> this for an action you intend to mean is complete or continuous. Aspect
> suffixes are not used for optional emphasis.
> *pItSa' vISop* CANNOT be used for /I ate the pizza; it's gone now./ It
> can be used to mean /I (like to, tend to, often do, do in fact) eat
> pizza,/ but it EXPLICITLY means that pizza-eating is not completed or
> continuous.

Right. That's what I said. Please note again what I said before my 
message: "please any linguistic expert forgive me if I'm not 100% 
accurate, it's partially done intentionally "

I'm not saying that {pItSa' vISop} DOES mean that it's completed.
What I said is that you do not need to say {vISopta'} because it's in 
the past, what most people do:
{wa'Hu' tach vI'elta', pa' loD vIleghpu' 'ej jIjatlhpu': nuq DaSoppu'? 
jangpu' vay': targh vISoppu'. jatlhpu' latlh: jISoppu'be', 'ach 
jItlhutlhpu'} - this is the incorrect use of the aspect suffix for past 

"I ate pizza yesterday" is {wa'Hu' pItSa' vISop}. It does NOT mean that 
it's complete, nor that it's continuous.

And if one likes to go even more into nitpicking, I am sure that it is 
correct to add a time frame: {qaStaHvIS wa' rep nuq DaSop} "What have 
you eaten during one hour". Anything eaten during that hour is completed 
eaten. Anything you eat is completed after you swallowed it.

Aspect is not mandatory. You wanted to not confuse the students. I tried 
to keep it simple, suggesting beginenrs avoid aspect until they feel 
comfortable with it and NOT use it as tense.

Lieven L. Litaer
aka Quvar valer 'utlh
Grammarian of the KLI

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list