thoughts on the -be'pu' vs -pu'be'
It's not that I get off on talking about aspect.. In fact, discussions on aspect are for me the same thing as time travel was for janeway on voyager; it's something I don't want to get caught up in.. But as janeway finally *had* to time travel, I always find myself being caught up in the mess of aspect. There's the tkd Ca'Non example of {vIta'pu'be'} for "I didn't do it". The way I understand the {vIta'pu'be'} is that it goes like: {vIta'pu'}-be'. Because that way, the meaning goes "I have done it"-not. On the other hand, if we analyzed it as {vIta'}-pu'be', then it would mean that my doing it hasn't been completed, meaning either that my doing it has been interrupted, or that at the moment the sentence is uttered my doing it still takes place, and I'm actually literally saying "it's not yet completed whatever it is I'm trying to accomplish". So, the only way the {vIta'pu'be'} can mean "I didn't do it", is if the {-be'} is interpreted as to be acting on the entire {vIta'pu'}. Alternatively, perhaps we could say {vIta'be'pu'}, which would mean that "the event of my not doing it is completed". I can't say I see anything wrong with that. Did you do it yesterday ? Asks one. {vIta'be'pu'} replies the other i.e. "I didn't do it, and now (or then) my not doing it is completed". So, the question arises.. If the {vIta'pu'}-be' is roughly the same with the {vIta'be'pu'}, then why don't we always place the {-be'} on the end of the word allowing it to act on the sum of verb+suffixes which precede it ? And I believe, that the answer is "because there are cases where the thing which we need to negate is not the entire verb+prefixes, but just one of the preceding prefixes". Assume we need to say "I have begun not to need cherish you". If we write {qaQejnISchoHbe'pu'} then likely it means "I haven't begun to need to cherish you". I can't see a way in which one could apply the {-be'} only to the {-nIS}. To express the meaning of "I have begun not to need cherish you" we would need to write {qaQejnISbe'choHpu'}. So, in verb where the {-pu'} and the {-be'} coexist, we can't always be placing the {-be'} after the {-pu'}.. So, I really can't understand why instead of writing {vIta'pu'be'} and expecting the reader to take the {-be'} and apply it to the entire word which precedes it, why we can't just write {vIta'be'pu'} which is clearer and doesn't leave room for misinterpretation. Aspect is a jay' nightmare.. ~ mayqel qunen'oS the ancient cat will talk before I will
On 4/29/2020 9:33 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Assume we need to say "I have begun not to need cherish you". If we write {qaQejnISchoHbe'pu'}
Then a Klingon will probably react with as much head-scratching to *qaQejnISchoHbe'pu' *as someone in English would react to /I have begun not to need to cherish you./ If you translation one convoluted sentence into another convoluted sentence, there's no point in worrying that it's not simple to understand. If you bring up such fine points of grammar to the ordinary English speaker, most will just shrug and say something like "I dunno. Whatever." I think the ordinary Klingon speaker would do the same thing. Language is not so precise. It's messy and inconsistent. When you try to pin down exact answers to your questions, the natural inconsistencies in the language overwhelm your analysis. Language is just how people speak, and if people speak imprecisely, then language is imprecise. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
This morning, after a not-so-good night's sleep but after a *very* good coffee, I discussed this -be'pu' vs -pu'be' matter with qeylIS, and I think that (finally) I understood what's going on. If we say {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISopbe'pu'} then it means "yesterday, I have (not eaten a pizza)". Now, suppose we say: {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'}. This can be interpreted in the following ways: 1. As in tkd; "yesterday, I (have eaten a pizza)-not", meaning "yesterday, I (have not) eaten a pizza". Here, the interpretation is that the {-be'} acts on the entire {vISoppu'} which precedes it. Before I continue to the point 2, there's something I need to comment; Recently, I asked at another thread, whether the {vIqIpta'be'} could mean "I did not inflict an intentional hit on you" instead of "intentionally I didn't hit you." There, De'vID explained that the {vIqIpta'be'} means ""intentionally I didn't hit you", something which at the time I couldn't understand. But now, finally I can: If instead of the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'} we had {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISopta'be'}, then again the meaning would be "yesterday, I (have eaten a pizza)-not", meaning "yesterday, I (have not) eaten a pizza"; but due to the nature of the {-ta'} the "have not" would need to be understood as being intentional, thus producing the meaning which De'vID suggested. (returning to the original subject..) 2. In this scenario we take the {-be'} and apply it only to the {-pu'}. So, the meaning becomes: "yesterday, I eat a pizza" (because of the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISop}), but now, because of the action of the {-pu'be'}, the complete meaning becomes that "my eating yesterday of the pizza hasn't been completed". The meaning essentially becomes "yesterday, I (haven't completely) eaten a pizza." But this "completely" doesn't have the context of {-chu'}, as in "I didn't perfectly devour the entire pizza." It rather has the meaning of showing that the "completed action described by the {-pu'} hasn't run its' entire course". Now, what the hell this can actually mean, I don't know. Looking back on the event, I recall that perhaps the eating was interrupted ? And if yes, then how would that be any different from just using historical present thus saying {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISop} "yesterday, I eat a pizza", and then proceed by narrating whatever happened which led to the interruption of the eating event ? I don't know.. Go figure.. Or perhaps the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'} *does* take place in the sense of the historical present, with me saying: "look, yesterday I eat a pizza, and at the moment when the eating event hasn't yet been completed, my ancient cat jumps on my head.." I don't know.. But what I *do* know, is that here we have two morons.. Moron #1: The person who would actually use the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'} attributing to it the analysis described in point 2 above. Moron #2: The person who would read the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'}, and understand it as the analysis described in point 2 above suggests. Who is the greatest moron ? I don't know. But I do know that: 1. The only logical way by which a sane person would understand the {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'}, is as in point 1. (and most importantly..) 2. Regardless whether we write {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISopbe'pu'} or {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'} (with the meaning of 1), the end result is more or less the same. I don't see any actual/considerable difference between "yesterday, I have (not eaten a pizza)" and "yesterday, I (have not) eaten a pizza". Considering these two sentences, I get the impression that this matter resembles the difference between saying "I agree" and "I don't disagree". No sentence is wrong, and perhaps this all boils down to what you want to say, and most importantly how you want to say it. Anyways, this is my understanding on the matter, and now, finally, I can put my mind to rest. Thank qeylIS.. ~ mayqel qunen'oS the main viewer on a klingon ship is usually overlaid with a complex ancient cat acquisition grid
SuStel:
If you bring up such fine points of grammar to the ordinary English speaker, most will just shrug and say something like "I dunno. Whatever." I think the ordinary Klingon speaker would do the same thing.
Now you reminded me.. Some years ago, I was asking something similar.. I don't remember exactly what it was, but I think it had to do with me trying to understand which suffix influences which and why. Then, at some point in the thread, charghwI' replied by saying: "arguing about something like this, would probably get you killed on Qo'noS." Then, I found that so funny, laughing so much that I still remember that incident although 2-3 years or more have passed. Fun aside, I agree that most native speakers in any language wouldn't care to analyze such details. When I was considering the question of this thread, initially I asked myself how I perceive this matter in klingon. Then I asked myself how I perceive this matter in english.. But as soon as I begun to ask myself how I perceive this matter in greek, immediately the thought appeared in my mind: Shut up, don't ask me that; I don't care. I just don't. I won't start wondering the differences between the greek equivalent phrases. I don't give a crap. So, yes; from personal experience I understand that a native speaker doesn't care the slightest, about these details.. And I believe that the average klingon reader, regardless whether he read {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISopbe'}, {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISopbe'pu'}, or {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'}, he wouldn't stop even for a second in order to think if it's historical present, or past tense, or an event completed. He would understand "yesterday I didn't eat a pizza", and that's it - case closed. And I would think exactly the same, since I never stop to analyze whenever I read others' klingon what *exactly* their aspect (or lack of it) means. However, I do believe that it's always better if we know how things work, even if in the end we tend not to (over)analyze things in the actual everyday use of klingon. ~ mayqel qunen'oS 'Imyaghbogh DoS vIpoQ
So, while reading this, I started thinking, what if you wanted to efficiently say that today, you ate pizza for the first time in your life (a very specific variation on your {wa’Hu’ pItSa’ vISoppu’be’}, and it hit me: DaHjaj pItSa’ vIqIH ‘ej vISop. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Apr 30, 2020, at 10:01 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
If you bring up such fine points of grammar to the ordinary English speaker, most will just shrug and say something like "I dunno. Whatever." I think the ordinary Klingon speaker would do the same thing.
Now you reminded me..
Some years ago, I was asking something similar.. I don't remember exactly what it was, but I think it had to do with me trying to understand which suffix influences which and why.
Then, at some point in the thread, charghwI' replied by saying: "arguing about something like this, would probably get you killed on Qo'noS." Then, I found that so funny, laughing so much that I still remember that incident although 2-3 years or more have passed.
Fun aside, I agree that most native speakers in any language wouldn't care to analyze such details. When I was considering the question of this thread, initially I asked myself how I perceive this matter in klingon. Then I asked myself how I perceive this matter in english.. But as soon as I begun to ask myself how I perceive this matter in greek, immediately the thought appeared in my mind:
Shut up, don't ask me that; I don't care. I just don't. I won't start wondering the differences between the greek equivalent phrases. I don't give a crap.
So, yes; from personal experience I understand that a native speaker doesn't care the slightest, about these details..
And I believe that the average klingon reader, regardless whether he read {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISopbe'}, {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISopbe'pu'}, or {wa'Hu', pItSa' vISoppu'be'}, he wouldn't stop even for a second in order to think if it's historical present, or past tense, or an event completed. He would understand "yesterday I didn't eat a pizza", and that's it - case closed. And I would think exactly the same, since I never stop to analyze whenever I read others' klingon what *exactly* their aspect (or lack of it) means.
However, I do believe that it's always better if we know how things work, even if in the end we tend not to (over)analyze things in the actual everyday use of klingon.
~ mayqel qunen'oS 'Imyaghbogh DoS vIpoQ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 4/30/2020 10:19 AM, Will Martin wrote:
So, while reading this, I started thinking, what if you wanted to efficiently say that today, you ate pizza for the first time in your life (a very specific variation on your {wa’Hu’ pItSa’ vISoppu’be’}, and it hit me:
DaHjaj pItSa’ vIqIH ‘ej vISop.
So you met this particular pizza for the first time and ate it? Surely you've met other pizzas before. (I'm ignoring your lack of perfective for this event you're obviously describing as completed after the fact.) -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 4/30/2020 10:01 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
So, yes; from personal experience I understand that a native speaker doesn't care the slightest, about these details.. However, I do believe that it's always better if we know how things work, even if in the end we tend not to (over)analyze things in the actual everyday use of klingon.
I don't think you follow me. I'm saying there is no prescribed correct answer. The correct answer to "How does the grammar work?" is "However it's used by the consensus of its speakers." Klingon is complicated by the fact that we have almost no access to its native speakers, so we cannot easily sample them to determine their consensus. But if what evidence we have shows us that Klingons freely order these suffixes however they want, then that's grammatically correct, regardless of what a textbook prescribes as rules. So you can construct elaborate examples and convoluted logic to describe the inner workings of the language, but in the end none of that matters if it doesn't agree with how Klingons actually speak. A grammar textbook is merely a description of a language, not the language itself. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (3)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin