[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[David Trimboli]

On 6/4/2012 10:23 PM, lojmIt tI'wI' nuv wrote:
>
> While I think that all the suggestions here are good sentences
> expressing variations on the originally stated meaning, I can't agree
> that aspect markers explicitly and exclusively mark the difference
> between a general tendency of an action to occur and a specific
> instance of the action occurring. There's just no evidence that I can
> recall for this in TKD or other canon.
 >
> It might be kinda cool if it were true, but I doubt it's true.
>
> More likely, it's like plural suffixes on nouns. Put them in if you
> want to make a point of marking aspect, but if you leave it out, it's
> typically not a big deal.

"The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not 
completed and not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things 
indicated by the Type 7 suffixes)." (TKD p. 40)

If an action is not marked continuous, it is not being described as an 
action progressing in time. If it is not marked perfective, it is not 
being viewed as an action that is a completed whole. Go ahead and try to 
describe an action that actually happened exactly once, without 
describing it as spread out over time or as an entire, indivisible unit.

Note that because English blends tense and aspect, you can often get 
different meanings from the same inflections. "I eat meat" can mean that 
you are in the process of eating meat during a single sitting 
(continuous aspect), or it can mean you have a propensity to eat meat 
(no aspect). It cannot mean you start and then finish eating meat during 
a single sitting.

Okrand tells us in TKD that the aspect suffixes are *required* if a 
meaning involves aspect. {Ha'DIbaH vISop} *cannot* mean you are in the 
process of eating meat at a single sitting, because it does not have a 
continuous or progress suffix. It *cannot* mean you start and then 
finish eating meat during a single sitting, because it does not have a 
perfective or accomplished suffix. It can mean things like you having a 
propensity to eat meat, or the idea of you eating meat, or that eating 
meat is habitual for you.

To repeat: to describe an action that is whole and completed, -pu' or 
-ta' is *required*. They are not optional. To describe an action that is 
an instance of a particular ongoing event, -taH or -lI' is *required*.

I describe the lack of a Type 7 suffix as "propensity," because this was 
an excellent explanation of exactly this situation by Stephen Pinker in 
his book THE STUFF OF THOUGHT. But this is just a convenient label; such 
verbs without Type 7 suffixes can also describes verbs that are 
habitual, or verbs that are generically true.

Ha'DIbaH vISop
I have a propensity for eating meat
I have a habit of eating meat
it is true that I eat meat

Ha'DIbaH vISoptaH
I am in the process of eating meat during the situation being described

Ha'DIbaH vISoppu'
I started and finished eating meat during the situation being described

And because Klingon does not have tense marked by suffixes, these 
sentences could be talking about the past, present or future. Note that 
"occurred before the time context of the sentence" is perfect *tense*, 
not perfective aspect.

So yes, the canon from Okrand is right there in TKD, and it is pretty 
explicit.

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