[Tlhingan-hol] Type 7 verb suffixes (was Re: nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'vatlh wejmaH vagh: <potlh QonoS>)

[David Trimboli]

On 2/10/2012 9:30 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
>
 > "The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not
 > completed and is not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things
 > indicated by the Type 7 suffixes)." [Section 4.2.7. Type 7: Aspect,
 > page 40]
 >
 > The word used in this sentence is "usually", not "always". There are
 > plenty of examples showing that an aspect suffix can be absent when
 > referring to a completed action. One is earlier on page 40: {baHchu'}
 > "he/she fired (the torpedo) perfectly".

Okay. So the "plenty of" examples should show it "usually" working this 
way, right? And therefore we should "usually" follow the rule.

Or if not, is it completely optional? If it's optional, why tell us that 
it "usually" means that?

(As for {baHchu'}, its purpose there is to demonstrate {-chu'}, so it 
may be ignoring other suffixes anyway. But yes, there are other examples 
of not using aspect where the translation would indicate there should be 
some.)

> Here's what TKD says about {-pu'} "perfective":
>
> "This suffix indicates that an action is completed." [page 41]
>
> It does not say the suffix refers to the entire action from start to
> finish. I don't see any reason to infer that it does.

Except that Okrand calls it "perfective," and that's what perfective 
means: an action that is viewed as a completed whole.

>> What Klingon does NOT have is a built-in *perfect* tense/aspect. Perfect
>> "tense" indicates that something is currently in a state or condition that
>> resulted from an action in the past. "I have eaten" means that I'm full now
>> because I ate earlier. This is different from "I ate," which is perfective
>> and means "I finished off a meal" (you wouldn't say "I ate" if you just took
>> one bite of an apple).
>
> I'm not following this at all. To me, "I have eaten" doesn't say
> anything about being full, nor does it imply that the eating is being
> considered as a complete whole.

No, "I have eaten" is perfect tense, not perfective aspect, so it 
doesn't describe something completed. You would only say "I have eaten" 
when you mean "I ate something earlier."

I used being full as an example context in which you would say it, not 
that it is necessarily part of the meaning of the sentence. "I have 
eaten" doesn't say you're full; you would only say it if you're full, or 
at least not hungry because of prior eating.

> All it means to me is that I finished
> eating before saying it.
> When I say "I ate", I am not intending to
> imply that I finished anything in particular. And I most certainly
> WOULD say "I ate one bite of an apple."

But (a) one bite of an apple is not an apple, and (b) I didn't give the 
sentence "I ate <something>"; I used the sentence "I ate." I'm not just 
talking about the verb inflection here; you have to consider the manner 
in which you would use the sentence.

So no, if you just had one bite of an apple, you wouldn't subsequently 
inform someone "I ate." That is used to indicate you've eaten to your 
satisfaction. You might say "I ate a piece of apple," but not "I ate."

For information on perfective vs. perfect: 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfective_aspect#Perfective_vs._perfect>

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