[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Jun 4, 2012, at 11:16 PM, David Trimboli <david at trimboli.name> wrote:

> 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.

This is obviously an important issue for you. I can see why you have
this particular bee in your bonnet based on the passage you keep
quoting from TKD p.40 and your study of what "perfective" means as
opposed to "perfect".

However, I believe you are significantly overstating the case when you
tell us that Okrand says aspect suffixes are required. There is ample
canon support to the contrary, in example sentences like {tIjwI'ghom
vIchenmoH} (TKD p.38), {yIjun) (TKD p.42), and {tujqu'choH QuQ} (TKD
p.170), as well as throughout the {paq'batlh} text, notably {ngIq
tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel} "In one single move, he removed the
hearts." I also see the word "usually" in what you call an explicit
requirement.

Then there's the repeated translation of Klingon perfective aspect as
English present perfect or past tense to consider. The {-pu'} suffix
might be *named* "perfective", but its usage does seem to match
"perfect" at least as well: {Daleghpu'} "you have seen it", {qaja'pu'}
"I told you", {tlhaqwIj chu'Ha'lu'pu'} "My chronometer has stopped."

So while I see your point, I don't think it's anywhere near as sharp
as you make it out to be.

-- ghunchu'wI'