<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">On Feb 25, 2019, at 17:00, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:<br>That's the one.</div><div><br></div>Ah, okay. I was hoping maybe there was something more definitively worded on the matter somewhere else that I couldn’t find.<br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<p>"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.</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>I made no claim about having to translate verbs with English
simple present. That's just a TKD convention.</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>The "usually" is just part of Okrand's usual bit about the
dictionary being only a basic sketch of the language.</p></div></blockquote><br><div>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.</div></body></html>