<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/26/2019 9:20 AM, Daniel Dadap
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:A87146D8-A0BD-4B4A-B750-7371C509BDAF@dadap.net">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.)</blockquote>
<p>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 <b>-ghach</b> 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 <b>-laH</b>
and <b>-lu'</b> 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.</p>
<p>Okrand has stated that he regrets making <b>-laH</b> and <b>-lu'</b>
mutually incompatible. The solution is illustrated by his
translations of <i>Kahless the Unforgettable:<b> </b></i><b>qeylIS
lIjlaHbe'bogh vay'; qeylIS lIjlaHbogh pagh.</b> This is how you
have to get around these limitations.</p>
<p>You can't say <b>wa'leS SIStaH 'e' vI'aqpu',</b> but you can say
<b>wa'leS SIStaH; muD Dotlhvetlh vI'aqpu'.</b> 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: "[<b>'e'</b>
and <b>net</b>] are used primarily, though not exclusively, with
verbs of thinking or observation (such as <i>know, see</i>)."
When we go far afield from that, we strain the ability of the
language to deliver the intended meaning.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>