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

[David Trimboli]

On 2/11/2012 12:33 AM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
> You're wrong. I WOULD say "I ate" in that context. When I use the verb
> "to eat" I do not necessarily mean to imply a meal, or even a
> satisfying snack.

It's not "to eat," it's the exact sentence "I ate." That sentence, and 
no other forms, inflections, or words.

Prince: Did you take a bite out of this apple?
Snow White: Yes, I ate.

She wouldn't say that!

> I usually just mean I put something in my mouth and
> swallowed it. I am willing to accept that your own association of
> "eat" with satisfaction leads you to label as a perfective what I
> consider simple past tense. I am NOT willing to change my own
> definitions to match yours.

These aren't *my* definitions, dude.

    And the second is called the /perfective,/ and can be visualized like
    this:

    [picture of an eye looking at an event on a timeline, with "field of
    vision" rays encomposing the whole of the event]

    [...]

    English doesn't have a way to mark the perfective aspect with its own
    suffix. But we can interpret verbs as perfective in context, as when
    we say /After Sarah jogged, she took a shower./ The activity of
    jogging, which ordinarily has no boundaries, is now taken in as a
    completed event, as if from a distant vantage point.

    We have visited every tense in English but one, the so-called
    perfect, as in /I have eaten./ The perfect, confusingly, is not the
    same as the perfective; indeed is not really a tense at all, but a
    combination of tense and an aspect. It indicates that something is
    currently in a state or condition that resulted from an action in the
    past...

    For example, /I have eaten/ (perfect) suggests that one is now sated
    and doesn't have to eat again, whereas /I ate/ can merely describe an
    event in a narrative at any time in the past. Unlike the state
    stipulated by a telic verb like /melt the butter,/ the state implied
    by the perfect has to be interpreted in context---it is any feature
    of the aftermath of an action that is now deemed significant. That's
    why it takes some degree of chutzpah to say /I have spoken/ or /I
    have arrived,/ rather than the humbler /I spoke/ or /I arrived./

    Steven Pinker, THE STUFF OF THOUGHT: LANGUAGE AS A WINDOW INTO HUMAN
    NATURE

> I do not consider
> Wikipedia to be an authoritative source of information anyway; at
> best, it's a helpful introduction to a topic with pointers to more
> reliable (and less capricious) sources.

Yes, so please introduce yourself to the correct meaning of 
"perfective." You can read a less capricious source later, if you're 
still interested. I pointed you to Wikipedia to show you an explanation, 
not to cite a scholarly source as part of a dissertation.

> I also don't really think
> trying to understand the way Greek or Latin or even English makes such
> distinctions is relevant to my use of Klingon. I believe that if I go
> by what Okrand wrote,

... in English, using grammatical terminology...

> I'll be using Klingon appropriately.

You have to understand what he wrote in English before you can 
understand Klingon. (Unless Klingon is your native language. 
Congratulations!)

Okrand says {-pu'} and {-ta'} are perfective aspect. He explains that 
this means they describe events that are completed. Most of the 
sentences in TKD that have a perfective meaning as defined by actual 
linguists use a perfective suffix.

 > and I'm willing to leave it at that.

Then please do. I'd quite like to get past the thought police and have 
the last word.

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