[tlhIngan Hol] Using -ta' during -taHvIS

[SuStel]

On 2/26/2019 9:20 AM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
> If I have to just say {wa'leS SIStaH 'e' vI'aq} or {wa'leS SIS 'e' 
> vI'aq} instead, since verbs taking SAO can’t also have a VS7, then the 
> information that {'aq} is completed has been lost, and if it can be 
> lost here, why not somewhere else? Certainly, the aspect of the verb 
> taking the SAO doesn’t come from the verb in the SAO, since {wa'leS 
> SISpu' 'e' vI'aq} sounds like the prediction is that it will stop 
> raining tomorrow, when what I really want to say is that I finished 
> predicting that it will rain tomorrow. (I’m now fairly convinced that 
> you do indeed need to use aspect markers when the meaning calls for 
> them, so I’m not holding this up as an argument to say they you don’t; 
> I’m just trying to understand the ramifications of this restriction 
> more fully.)

It's true that sometimes the arbitrary limitations of the grammar mean 
that sometimes you have to find other ways to say what you want, when 
violating the rule would give you exactly what you want. I can't tell 
you how many times a thorny problem would have been solved by being able 
to put *-ghach* on a verb with no suffixes, or being able to put 
something other than noun phrases in the comparative construction, or 
being able to use *-laH* and *-lu'* at the same time without slang, or, 
in this case, being able to specify aspect on the second verb of a 
sentence-as-object. You just have to look elsewhere.

Okrand has stated that he regrets making *-laH* and *-lu'* mutually 
incompatible. The solution is illustrated by his translations of 
/Kahless the Unforgettable:**/*qeylIS lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'; qeylIS 
lIjlaHbogh pagh.* This is how you have to get around these limitations.

You can't say *wa'leS SIStaH 'e' vI'aqpu',* but you can say *wa'leS 
SIStaH; muD Dotlhvetlh vI'aqpu'.* It's awkward, but it's awkward because 
you're insisting on focusing on the completion of the prediction. I get 
the feeling, from Okrand's translations as well as the text in TKD, that 
the second sentence of a sentence-as-object is supposed to be a fairly 
lightweight thing, not meant to carry the bulk of the meaning: "[*'e'* 
and *net*] are used primarily, though not exclusively, with verbs of 
thinking or observation (such as /know, see/)." When we go far afield 
from that, we strain the ability of the language to deliver the intended 
meaning.


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190226/c1128c97/attachment-0015.htm>