*lurtz*vaD QIjtaH *saruman* ; jatlhtaH: chay' orcs chenmoHlu'ta' ? bISov'a' ? wa'DIch elves chaHpu' 'ach quchta' HoSwI'pu' Hurgh ; joy'ta' 'ej porghchaj luQaw'ta'.. tagha' ghot rIQchu' mojpu'.. lo'laHbe'pu' chaH.. ghot luQaw'lu'chu'ta'bogh chaH. 'ach DaH povchoH chaH ! SuvmeH *uruk-hai*wIj.. 'Iv Datoy' ? ('ej ngugh jang lurtz) : Saruman !!! qunnoq
ok, I don't know about this.. while I was writing, I was asking myself the question "is the event (at the time the events of the sentence where narrated) completed ?". however I think that eventually this produced too many aspect suffixes ; perhaps its that saruman actually talks to lurtz about completed events, but again i don't know.. something feels wrong here. qunnoq On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:08 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
*lurtz*vaD QIjtaH *saruman* ; jatlhtaH:
chay' orcs chenmoHlu'ta' ? bISov'a' ?
wa'DIch elves chaHpu' 'ach quchta' HoSwI'pu' Hurgh ; joy'ta' 'ej porghchaj luQaw'ta'.. tagha' ghot rIQchu' mojpu'.. lo'laHbe'pu' chaH.. ghot luQaw'lu'chu'ta'bogh chaH. 'ach DaH povchoH chaH !
SuvmeH *uruk-hai*wIj.. 'Iv Datoy' ?
('ej ngugh jang lurtz) : Saruman !!!
qunnoq
In a subsequent post you express doubt about your aspect suffixes. I will comment on them here, among other comments. On 8/23/2016 6:08 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
*lurtz*vaD QIjtaH *saruman* ; jatlhtaH:
I wouldn't normally expect a *-taH* here. It's not wrong per se, but the fact that his speech is ongoing isn't really relevant, is it? You want to talk about the fact of what he said, rather than the fact of its being ongoing. Hasta lut DaDeltaH. paq vImaSchu'. Qatlhqu' /Qeb joH/ mughmeH Qu'.
chay' orcs chenmoHlu'ta' ? bISov'a' ?
Considering the English original, "Do you know how the Orcs first came into being?" it seems to me that your aspect suffix here is correct. Saruman is asking how /were/ the Orcs made, not how /are/ Orcs made. It was an event. Completion makes sense here. Sometimes one will pluralize a foreign word using the native language's plurals, and sometimes one use the foreign language's plurals. You've chosen the latter. I'll stick with that in this reply.
wa'DIch elves chaHpu'
This use of an ordinal at the beginning of a sentence is still new enough to us that I'm not completely comfortable with it, but I accept it as canonical. However, you have two choices here: *wa'DIch */elves/*chaH */first they were elves/ /elves/*chaHpu' */they had been elves/ You don't want both together; that means /first they had been elves,/ which suggests that when you start ("first") they had already completed being elves, or that first they are elves for a moment.
'ach quchta' HoSwI'pu' Hurgh ;
This one's a toughie. On the one hand, knowing my /Silmarillion/, I know that elves weren't taken by the servants of Melkor all at once; while they lived at Cuiviénen his shadows and spirits spied on them and waylaid them. *quch* (without the *-ta'*) is really more appropriate. On the other hand, if you're going strictly by what Saruman says in the movie, you'd really have no way of knowing that. You might well think he was referring to a single raid in which Melkor captured a bunch of elves. In that case, *-ta'* would be appropriate.
joy'ta'
Same note. *joy'* is more appropriate for what the book describes, but for all you know in the movie when Saruman speaks it could have been *joy'ta'.*
'ej porghchaj luQaw'ta'..
Drop the *lu-.* Also, same note regarding aspect here. You might want to use *rIQmoH* instead of *Qaw'* here. I don't feel either quite captures /mutilate,/ though. I'm out of time for now. See if you can apply this to the rest of your translation.
tagha' ghot rIQchu' mojpu'.. lo'laHbe'pu' chaH.. ghot luQaw'lu'chu'ta'bogh chaH. 'ach DaH povchoH chaH !
SuvmeH *uruk-hai*wIj.. 'Iv Datoy' ?
('ej ngugh jang lurtz) : Saruman !!!
qunnoq _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
DaH, jIQongnISbej.. jIQongnISmo', SoQchoH mInDu'wIj.. 'a potlhqu'mo' QInvam ghom, jIjang 'e' vIlumQo'. toH ! jIH;
*lurtz*vaD QIjtaH *saruman* ; jatlhtaH: SuStel I wouldn't normally expect a -taH here. It's not wrong per se, but the fact that his speech is ongoing isn't really relevant, is it? You want to talk about the fact of what he said, rather than the fact of its being ongoing.
I'm happy to hear that the use of {-taH} isn't wrong here ; however I notice that another aspect of the use of aspect is brought up ; Should someone use aspect only for the events that are relevant, or should he use it for all the events of a story ? SuStel:
Hasta lut DaDeltaH
HIja'. paqmey vIlaDbe'. SuStel:
Qatlhqu' Qeb joH mughmeH Qu'.
mu'mey Hutlhmo' tlhIngan Hol, Qatlhqu' Qu'vam. 'ej Doch law' Hutlhmo' tlhIngan Hol, reH jIbep. naQbe'bej tlhIngan Hol ! jIH:
wa'DIch elves chaHpu' SuStel: wa'DIch elves chaH first they were elves. elves chaHpu' they had been elves You don't want both together; that means first they had been elves, which suggests that when you start ("first") they had already completed being elves or that first they are elves for a moment.
I'm not sure I'm following here ; perhaps there is a misunderstanding on my part with regards to what the aspect suffix {-pu'} actually stands for. It stands for a completed event, right ? Does that event, need to have stopped being in effect as well ? The "orcs were elves once". That's a completed event. "Once they were elves". Perhaps later they stopped being elves, but during the point of time which the "once" refers to, there was a completed event, and that event was "they being elves". I can't understand why we can't have both the "once" and the {pu'}. SuStel:
See if you can apply this to the rest of your translation
maj. I'll approach this one sentence at a time, commenting only on my chosen use of aspect suffix. I'll not comment on the words that were chosen in order to express the original passage, since one can only try to compensate for klingon's limited and inadequate vocabulary. jIH:
tagha' ghot rIQchu' mojpu'
The {-pu'} on the {moj} was placed, because we have the completed event "of their becoming perfectly injured" jIH:
lo'laHbe'pu' chaH..
Again, the completed event of their "being worthless". Now, ok.. I see the (possible) problem here. They continue being worthless. On the other hand their "having been made worthless" is a completed event, right ? It's not that they're becoming more worthless, with the passing of time. At the time of the sentence, their "worthlessness" is complete. jIH:
ghot luQaw'lu'chu'ta'bogh chaH
This stands for "beings which someone perfectly destroyed they were". The {-ta'} on the {luQaw'lu'chu'ta'bogh} is for the obvious reason that someone set out to destroy them, and eventually did it. Perhaps I should have placed a {-pu'} on the {chaH} ? Since at the time of the sentence their "having been perfectly destroyed" is complete, then maybe yes, I should have written {chaHpu'}. jIH:
'ach DaH povchoH chaH !
I chose to use {choH} on its own, because I remembered you had told me once: "{choH} is a form of aspect, so one needs not place additional aspect suffixes on a word which already has a {choH}". jIH:
SuvmeH *uruk-hai*wIj.. 'Iv Datoy' ?
No aspect suffix here, because Saruman asks in general "whom do you serve?" jIH:
('ej ngugh jang lurtz) : Saruman !!!
Again, no aspect suffix here, due to the {ngugh}. "Then (at that time) lurtz replies". Now that I'm thinking of it again, perhaps I could place a {-taH}. "then (at that time) lurtz is replying".. However I don't think it is important to specify that at the point of time (which the {ngugh} describes) lurtz is (during the seconds he needs to speak) continuously replying. And maybe here I come to understand your initial comment on using aspect on the relevant/important parts of a story. Anyway, I am very interested in hearing your comments/thoughts on all this.. qunnoq On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 4:33 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
In a subsequent post you express doubt about your aspect suffixes. I will comment on them here, among other comments.
On 8/23/2016 6:08 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
*lurtz*vaD QIjtaH *saruman* ; jatlhtaH:
I wouldn't normally expect a -taH here. It's not wrong per se, but the fact that his speech is ongoing isn't really relevant, is it? You want to talk about the fact of what he said, rather than the fact of its being ongoing.
Hasta lut DaDeltaH. paq vImaSchu'. Qatlhqu' Qeb joH mughmeH Qu'.
chay' orcs chenmoHlu'ta' ? bISov'a' ?
Considering the English original, "Do you know how the Orcs first came into being?" it seems to me that your aspect suffix here is correct. Saruman is asking how were the Orcs made, not how are Orcs made. It was an event. Completion makes sense here.
Sometimes one will pluralize a foreign word using the native language's plurals, and sometimes one use the foreign language's plurals. You've chosen the latter. I'll stick with that in this reply.
wa'DIch elves chaHpu'
This use of an ordinal at the beginning of a sentence is still new enough to us that I'm not completely comfortable with it, but I accept it as canonical. However, you have two choices here:
wa'DIch elves chaH first they were elves
elves chaHpu' they had been elves
You don't want both together; that means first they had been elves, which suggests that when you start ("first") they had already completed being elves, or that first they are elves for a moment.
'ach quchta' HoSwI'pu' Hurgh ;
This one's a toughie. On the one hand, knowing my Silmarillion, I know that elves weren't taken by the servants of Melkor all at once; while they lived at Cuiviénen his shadows and spirits spied on them and waylaid them. quch (without the -ta') is really more appropriate.
On the other hand, if you're going strictly by what Saruman says in the movie, you'd really have no way of knowing that. You might well think he was referring to a single raid in which Melkor captured a bunch of elves. In that case, -ta' would be appropriate.
joy'ta'
Same note. joy' is more appropriate for what the book describes, but for all you know in the movie when Saruman speaks it could have been joy'ta'.
'ej porghchaj luQaw'ta'..
Drop the lu-. Also, same note regarding aspect here.
You might want to use rIQmoH instead of Qaw' here. I don't feel either quite captures mutilate, though.
I'm out of time for now. See if you can apply this to the rest of your translation.
tagha' ghot rIQchu' mojpu'.. lo'laHbe'pu' chaH.. ghot luQaw'lu'chu'ta'bogh chaH. 'ach DaH povchoH chaH !
SuvmeH *uruk-hai*wIj.. 'Iv Datoy' ?
('ej ngugh jang lurtz) : Saruman !!!
qunnoq _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/23/2016 11:41 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
wa'DIch elves chaH first they were elves. elves chaHpu' they had been elves You don't want both together; that means first they had been elves, which suggests that when you start ("first") they had already completed being elves or that first they are elves for a moment. I'm not sure I'm following here ; perhaps there is a misunderstanding on my part with regards to what the aspect suffix {-pu'} actually stands for.
It stands for a completed event, right ? Does that event, need to have stopped being in effect as well ? The "orcs were elves once". That's a completed event. "Once they were elves". Perhaps later they stopped being elves, but during the point of time which the "once" refers to, there was a completed event, and that event was "they being elves".
That's your error. During the "once," they were still elves. When it was "once," being elves wasn't completed.
I can't understand why we can't have both the "once" and the {pu'}.
Either it's "once" and the elves are still being elves, or it's no longer "once" and being elves is completed.
jIH:
('ej ngugh jang lurtz) : Saruman !!! Again, no aspect suffix here, due to the {ngugh}. "Then (at that time) lurtz replies". Now that I'm thinking of it again, perhaps I could place a {-taH}. "then (at that time) lurtz is replying"..
Replying a single word doesn't sound "continuous" to me... -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
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 ? qunnoq On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:50 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/23/2016 11:41 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
wa'DIch elves chaH first they were elves. elves chaHpu' they had been elves You don't want both together; that means first they had been elves, which suggests that when you start ("first") they had already completed being elves or that first they are elves for a moment.
I'm not sure I'm following here ; perhaps there is a misunderstanding on my part with regards to what the aspect suffix {-pu'} actually stands for.
It stands for a completed event, right ? Does that event, need to have stopped being in effect as well ? The "orcs were elves once". That's a completed event. "Once they were elves". Perhaps later they stopped being elves, but during the point of time which the "once" refers to, there was a completed event, and that event was "they being elves".
That's your error. During the "once," they were still elves. When it was "once," being elves wasn't completed.
I can't understand why we can't have both the "once" and the {pu'}.
Either it's "once" and the elves are still being elves, or it's no longer "once" and being elves is completed.
jIH:
('ej ngugh jang lurtz) : Saruman !!!
Again, no aspect suffix here, due to the {ngugh}. "Then (at that time) lurtz replies". Now that I'm thinking of it again, perhaps I could place a {-taH}. "then (at that time) lurtz is replying"..
Replying a single word doesn't sound "continuous" to me...
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
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
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.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
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
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
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
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
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
participants (2)
-
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel