[Tlhingan-hol] Marc on Aspect

[David Trimboli]

On 8/15/2012 3:58 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
>
> Qov:
>>>> I'll just note that we now appear to know that Klingons use the
>>>> American-style 'group is singular.' <'oH mutlh QI>, and not <'oH
>>>> lumutlh>. cf "BP regret ..." vs. "Microsoft is ..."
>
> Voragh:
>>> We've seen examples of the "American-style" before:
>>>
>>>   vangDI' tlhIngan SuvwI' ngoy' qorDu'Daj ...
>>>   The family of a Klingon warrior is responsible
>>>   for his actions ... TKW
>>>
>>>    not *{lungoy'}
>
> ghunchu'wI':
>> That's not an example. Adding some punctuation to clarify:
>>
>>    vangDI' tlhIngan SuvwI', ngoy' qorDu'Daj.
>>
>> {ngoy'} is not using an object (and its definition "be responsible"
>> doesn't make it clear that it uses any).
>
> va! bIlughchu'. I was searching the examples of {qorDu'}, {yejquv},
> etc. for examples of transitive verbs and mis-read this as:
>
>    *vangDI' tlhIngan, SuvwI' ngoy' qorDu'Daj (!)
>
> which is of course gibberish. {ngoy} is a quality and cannot take an
> object, at least not without adding {-moH}.
>
>> My only immediate question is something not prompted by this
>> answer. I have long wondered exactly what it means to put a
>> perfective suffix on a verb representing a state or quality.
>> For example, does {tujpu'} carry an implication that it is
>> no longer hot?

I believe it does. Being hot is completed. If the subject were still 
hot, {-pu'} would be expressing past tense, not a completion aspect.

Naturally, any such implication is restricted to the scope of the 
context being expressed, so saying that something {tujpu'} doesn't 
necessarily mean that it never, ever has been hot again, only that it 
stopped being hot at the time being considered.

Perhaps the conceptual difficulty with adding completion suffixes to 
qualities is that completion doesn't just mean "stopped"; it means 
"performed until finished." It is easy to imagine what {Soppu'} "eat to 
completion" means; it is not so easy to imagine what {tujpu'} "be hot to 
completion" means.

> The only example of {tuj} with a Type 7 suffix is:
>
>    ghorgh tujchoHpu' bIQ
>    When will the water be hot? TKD
>
> which uses an intervening {-choH}. We have two other examples of
> {tujchoH}, but without aspectual suffixes:
>
>    tujqu'choH QuQ
>    The engine is overheating. TKD
>
>    tujqu'choHmo' QeHchaj nagh tetlaH tujvam
>    Their anger so hot, It could melt the rock (PB 76-77)

{-choH} also expresses a kind of aspect. It describes how a verb was not 
happening, but then began, and doesn't specify an ending. Therefore it 
doesn't surprise me that these appar without a type 7 suffix. The 
{tujchoHpu'} example is the one that's weird. Does it mean becoming hot 
is completed or being hot becomes completed? The two different aspects 
are competing. According to the English translation it should mean 
becoming hot is completed, where {-pu'} modifies the entirety of 
{tujchoH}, in which case we don't have a completion suffix modifying a 
pure quality verb.

> Outside of poetry, I'm not sure that you can use perfective suffixes
> on bare qualities, only action verbs.

I'm not sure it would be a prohibition so much as a strange and narrow 
meaning. I can't think of any canon examples that mean "complete being 
<quality>."

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/