[tlhIngan Hol] Using -ta' during -taHvIS

Daniel Dadap daniel at dadap.net
Mon Feb 25 17:40:21 PST 2019

> On Feb 25, 2019, at 17:00, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> That's the one.

Ah, okay. I was hoping maybe there was something more definitively worded on the matter somewhere else that I couldn’t find.
> "Usually" allows for exceptions, such as not being allowed to put a type 7 suffix on the second verb of a sentence-as-object. And if a rule "usually" holds, then it usually holds, and is not merely optional.

Okay. It probably does, and I’ll personally consider using aspect markers when the meaning calls for them a best, most correct, practice, but I’m still not totally convinced that it’s definitely, 100% true. Just the mere fact that a verb taking a sentence as an object can’t have a type 7 suffix (but probably can have a perfective or imperfective meaning) makes me personally think that the suffix *may* not be totally needed to communicate that meaning. But it is also entirely possible that taking a sentence as object is the only case in which these suffixes may be omitted despite the meaning calling for them, or one of a very small number of other cases.

Anyway, I do think the language in TKD 4.2.7 certainly suggests that using the aspect markers is a good thing to do, but I’ve seen a lot of (non-canon) usage that seems consistent with a looser, more “optional” view of the suffixes than the one you promote. I haven’t yet studied the canon sufficiently to see if the same holds true in canon.

In particular, the Duolingo course seems to use verbs with no aspect markers with English translations in the simple past quite regularly, in sentences where it seems like the meaning would indicate a completed action. It does seem that at least a few people feel that the aspect markers can be left off, so I’d be interested in hearing some arguments in favor of such a view as well, if anybody has them.

> I made no claim about having to translate verbs with English simple present. That's just a TKD convention.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to make it sound like I was claiming you’ve made such a claim. I was merely saying that the language about the simple present likely referred specifically to the translating convention in the dictionary, as you’ve pointed out as well.

> The "usually" is just part of Okrand's usual bit about the dictionary being only a basic sketch of the language.

Which in turn is probably because he didn’t want to pin things down in too fine detail, to leave some flexibility for future work on the language.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190225/1958c779/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list