jIH:
wa'DIch elves chaHpu' SuStel: That's your error. During the "once," they were still elves. When it was "once," being elves wasn't completed.
I can't understand how "when it was once" being elves wasn't completed. It was completed, because while the "once" was happening they were as elves as they ever were going to be. If after the "once" ended, they hadn't been made into orcs, then they would continue being the same elves they were, as they were during the once. Thus and the completed event.. Their being turned into orcs didn't interrupt the completion of an event (their elvehood). It was rather an alteration of a completed event. What am I missing here ? qunnoq ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On 24 Aug 2016 6:18 p.m., "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Reading again the two sentences I posted, I came to realize this :
The event described by the {-pu'} needs to have
1. a beginning 2. an end
The fact that it has ended, doesn't necessarily mean that it has stopped being in effect.
Example:
The cat fell in the paint and became blue.
This is an event which has a beginning, an end, and its effect continues beyond the end of the event (the "fall" ended) however the cat continues to be blue.
So, if we reconsider the elf-orc examples, perhaps we could comment the following.
wa'Hu' elf ghaHpu'.
This must mean that during yesterday "his being an elf" was completed. Today, perhaps he is still an elf, or he became an orc. We don't know. The sentence only talks about the completion of an event, which completion occured yesterday.
However the question arises:
Yesterday he is an elf. This reality was completed yesterday. But when did it start ? This is THE question.
The way I understand the {-pu'} so far, the perfective specifies only the fact that the action was completed ; its job isn't to provide information with regards to "when the action actually begun".
Yesterday his "being an elf" came to completion. Perhaps the process which led to his "becoming an elf" started yesterday, perhaps it started a thousand years ago. We don't know and we can't tell that from the {-pu'} alone, simply because that's not its job.
For the time being, this summarizes my understanding of the perfective {-pu'}.
qunnoq ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta'
On 24 Aug 2016 5:55 p.m., "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Searching the web desperate for answers, I realized that our problem here isn't the {-ta'} {-taH} or {-lI'}. It is focused on the {-pu'}.
So, after some digging I found these two sentences which concern the use of {-pu'}.
SuStel tIlaD:
1. Perfective aspect is used in referring to an event conceived as bounded and unitary, without reference to any flow of time during ("I helped him")
2. The perfect aspect indicates that the end of the action is known and is used to emphasize the fact that the action is complete.
Now, I want to ask you:
1. Do you agree with the above ?
2. If you do agree, then how would you define an event as being "bounded and unitary" ?
DaH, logh DaqvamDaq ratlh buq'IrwIj 'ej jabbI'IDlIj pIH.
qunnoq
ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta'
On 24 Aug 2016 1:48 p.m., "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Searching the web desperate for answers, I realized that our problem here isn't the {-ta'} {-taH} or {-lI'}. It is focused on the {-pu'}.
So, after some digging I found these two sentences which concern the use of {-pu'}.
SuStel tIlaD:
1. Perfective aspect is used in referring to an event conceived as bounded and unitary, without reference to any flow of time during ("I helped him")
2. The perfect aspect indicates that the end of the action is known and is used to emphasize the fact that the action is complete.
Now, I want to ask you:
1. Do you agree with the above ?
2. If you do agree, then how would you define an event as being "bounded and unitary" ?
DaH, logh DaqvamDaq ratlh buq'IrwIj 'ej jabbI'IDlIj pIH.
qunnoq
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:54 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
No, it needs to be completed by the action to which the verb the suffix is attached to refers. If that very verb doesn't describe the completion of the action, then the completion suffix isn't appropriate.
I didn't understand a word of this..
jIH:
the event, which is described by the aspect suffix {-pu'} must : 1. be completed 2. have stopped being in effect SuStel: No
I studied the elf-orc examples, and I can't understand why the two conditions I described aren't correct/applicable.
I don't know.. this is rather confusing. And I wonder ; even you and lieven couldn't agree on this whole "aspect matter".. And you're both grammarians/experts !
So, what hope is there for a simple guy to figure this out ?
Normally, I would throw the towel and follow in the footsteps of our good captain. However, because I'm a capricorn I can't quit !
So, this is how this will go down.. I will study on the internet about aspect in general, and after I finish I will write my conclusions. Then, we'll take it from there..
toQDujlIj ghomqa'DI' buq'IrwIj, Ser wIchav. 'e' vItul..
qunnoq
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 9:21 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
maj SuStel !
wa'leS, mu'meylIj vIpoj ! DaH, whisky vItlhutlhta'mo' 'ej jIDoy'mo', jIQongnIS ! murIt QongDaqwIj..
jIQongtaHvIS, nIyma'pu' vIleghbe'. 'e' vItul !
qunnoq ghogh HablI'vo aah who cares..
On 23 Aug 2016 8:35 p.m., "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/23/2016 11:56 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
That's your error. During the "once," they were still elves. When it was "once," being elves wasn't completed.
hmm.. Perhaps I'm beginning to understand. So you're saying that the event, which is described by the aspect suffix {-pu'} must :
1. be completed 2. have stopped being in effect
right ?
No, it needs to be completed by the action to which the verb the
suffix is
attached to refers. If that very verb doesn't describe the completion of the action, then the completion suffix isn't appropriate.
Suppose I was an elf yesterday and I'm an orc today.
wa'Hu' elf jIH I was an elf yesterday. During yesterday, I was being an elf. I didn't complete being an elf during yesterday. I completed being an elf after yesterday, but I didn't say DorDI' wa'Hu', I said wa'Hu'. So being an elf was completed, but it wasn't completed during yesterday.
wa'Hu' elf jIHpu' I was (and completed being) an elf yesterday. During yesterday, I was and elf and then my being an elf was complete. I stopped being an elf during yesterday, though I had been one before that.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org