[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[David Trimboli]

On 6/5/2012 8:05 AM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
>
> 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),

Lacking context, we don't know if this refers to a concrete case of the 
speaker actually forming a boarding party "right now" or "yesterday 
afternoon" or "in one hour." It might be used to mean "I *intend* to 
form a boarding party."

Perhaps instead of overstating, I haven't stated enough. A "concrete 
instance" doesn't necessarily refer to "done once"; it means an instance 
that can actually be pointed to on a timeline and labeled, "This 
actually happened/happens here."

> {yIjun) (TKD p.42),

If you command someone to evade, you're not placing an evasion event on 
a timeline. You're not ordering the listener to do something 
continuously, and you're not ordering the listener to do something and 
be done with it.

> and {tujqu'choH QuQ} (TKD p.170),

This is a better counter-example. I think the {-choH} is the 
explanation, falling under the "usually" part of the rule you point out 
below. It refers to an event starting and continuing. On a timeline, it 
would be an event starting abruptly and spreading into the future.

I wouldn't be surprised if this weren't somewhere described as a 
grammatical aspect with a particular name.

> as well as throughout the {paq'batlh} text, notably {ngIq
> tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel} "In one single move, he removed the
> hearts."

Simple. In the years since TKD was written, Okrand has started to, and 
now nearly totally, relies on KLI members to support his grammar. Since 
everyone in the KLI has confused perfect tense with perfective aspect 
for decades (myself included), so does Okrand, now.

> I also see the word "usually" in what you call an explicit
> requirement.

So "usually" means "whenever you want," huh? Might it not mean "except 
where other grammar overrides it"? Like {-choH} adding a 
start-and-continue sense?

> 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."

This is merely a product of translation. You can't speak in English 
without tense. These are not counter-examples; they are merely two 
present perfect-tense and one past-tense English sentences. The first 
two have context in Star Trek III, and the context supports the 
perfective interpretation. Valkris saw the Genesis report. It is 
referred to as a complete event, a featureless dot on the timeline. 
Kruge told his gunner to target engines only. He refers to it as an 
event without shape; it just happened and was over with.

As I pointed out before, English allows both perfect tense and 
perfective aspect interpretations, depending on context. Klingon does 
not. So a Klingon sentence which must be interpreted with perfective 
aspect may *sound* like perfect tense in an English translation. Okrand 
even points out that he "often" translates perfective as "present 
perfect." He knows (or knew at the time) the difference.

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