[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:43 AM, David Trimboli <david at trimboli.name> wrote:
>> {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.

The explanation of this example is contrary to your interpretation:
"In the first case, the maneuver is to be executed once only."

>> 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.

It's not "in the years since TKD was written." It's in TKD itself.
Okrand gave English present perfect as an appropriate translation of
Klingon perfective from the very beginning.  If we're confused, it's
because what TKD tells us is not what you're telling us now.

Canonical usage matches what TKD tells us, and it does not match what
you insist is correct. Marc Okrand consistently urges us to look at
usage in order to determine what is proper. I choose to believe that
TKD is not written to confuse us, and I interpret your position as a
hypercorrection based on having studied the rules too hard.

>> 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?

I think it's more likely to mean "when focusing on aspect is important
to the idea being expressed".

> [{Daleghpu'} has]
> 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.

It is also referred to as a completed event, one which has already
occurred in the context where it is being mentioned. Note that TKD
does describe perfective as "completed", which I think most of us
understand to mean "finished" or "done". This contrasts with your
calling it "complete", by which I think you mean "whole".

> Okrand even points out that he
> "often" translates perfective as "present perfect." He knows (or knew at the
> time) the difference.

I find little difference between TKD's use of the words "often" and
"usually". I see no reason to pick one of them to support the strict
"if the meaning has aspect, it must have a suffix" side and the other
to counter the liberal "use the suffix only if expressing the aspect
is fundamental" side. Especially since the liberal side has pages of
canonical usage behind it.

-- ghunchu'wI'

P.S. Whatever you're doing to respond to the list is keeping your
messages from being archived. If that's not intentional, you might
want to do something about it.