[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[David Trimboli]

On 6/5/2012 2:16 PM, ghunchu'wI' 'utlh wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 11:49 AM, David Trimboli<david at trimboli.name>
>  wrote:
>> As far as I can tell your argument boils down to "because we've
>> always done it this way."
>
> It's not so much that "we've always done it." In fact, the [mis]use
> of {-pu'} as an indicator of simple past tense is one of the more
> endearing features of the early tlhIngan-Hol mailing list posts.

Okay. Just so we're clear, you're stating that {-pu'} *does* mean past
tense?

I don't find it endearing, though it doesn't offend me, either. I just
find it wrong.

> On the contrary, I'm arguing that this is how Klingon IS done,
> supported largely by a large body of recent text.

A large body of recent text edited by the very people on this list who
believe that {-pu'} expresses past tense. You don't see the feedback
loop there?

We confuse aspect with tense.
We edit canonical texts.
We point to these texts as proof that Klingon has tense.

> I would distill my position on this topic into two points. 1) TKD
> absolutely does not say aspect suffixes are required when the meaning
> does not exclude perfective or continuous aspect. 2) Canon text often
> does not use aspect suffixes when there is an apparent aspect meaning
> but expressing it is inconsequential.
>
> That's basically it.

I'm trying to wrap my brain around the negatives in your point 1). Let
me try to summarize my own position in points.

1. When Okrand says "usually," he means "always, except when other
rules, which may or may not be explained elsewhere, apply." He does not
mean "always, except when you don't feel like it." When I say "always"
or "definitely" or "explicitly," I too mean "except when other rules apply."

2. When Okrand says "perfective," he means the actual, grammatical
definition of "perfective." When he says "continuous" or "progressive,"
he means the actual grammatical definition of these terms. Any
explanation of these terms that he gives are for the benefit of the
reader who may not be familiar with them; they are not complete definitions.

3. When Okrand translates into English, he translates into the best
colloquial sentence possible. As with all translations, they are never
absolutely the same as the original. Since English cannot separate tense
and aspect, Okrand compromises and gives you a sentence with mixed
aspect and tense, and warns you how he's going to translate it.

4. "Perfective" means an action is expressed as being begun and
finished. The internal details of how that action occurs over time are
not expressed. The verb by itself does not say anything about *when* the
action occurs. It does not mean "before" or "after" anything; these are
tense ideas.

5. If a verb lacks a Type 7 suffix, the speaker is expressing a concept
that is definitely not continuous and definitely not perfective. The
meaning cannot include these concepts if these suffixes are lacking.
Such words may be called "imperfective but not continuous." They can
include meanings like, but not necessarily limited to propensities,
habits, regularity, timeless truths, theoretical possibilities, and
conditions.

6. Those imperfective but not continuous meanings don't include those
meanings that, based on the sentence and its context, would let you
pinpoint on a timeline when the action takes place. Propensities and
timeless truths don't occur at particular times. Regular or habitual
actions take place often, but the time context of the sentence doesn't
pinpoint when the action takes place. Temporary conditions might or
might not be described as continuous; if they are, you're describing the
ongoing condition at the time context, and if they're not, you're
describing the condition at all points during the time context without
regard to whether it is progressing.

> Not having read the Pinker text that is apparently informing your
> argument,

Pinker's book merely explained to me the difference between aspect and
tense, and the meanings of perfective aspect, perfect tense, and
continuous aspect.

> However, when I'm thinking in Klingon,

When you're thinking in the form of Klingon informed by the flawed
definition of "perfective" given on this list for decades. How you think
in Klingon isn't relevant to understanding what appears in the text if
you learned it wrong.

> I comprehend a verb expressing aspect as more of a quality or a
> state than an event.

Aspect describes how an action or event occurs over time. This is the
definition of aspect.

> In my understanding, perfective indicates a finished state, focusing
>  not on the actual completion of the action but on the fact that it
> is indeed finished.

This is essentially correct. But it also includes that there is no
reference to the flow of time during the event. There is an event, it
finishes, and we're going to look at it as a bounded, discrete thing.

> Continuous indicates a quality of ongoing action. Neither explicitly
> places the action on a timeline, though I can't quite imagine how an
> action can be finished without it having happened prior to the time
> when it is finished,

I never said anything about prior to the time it was finished; I said
perfective doesn't refer to events being prior to the time context of
the sentence.

{DaHjaj jISoppu'} means "today I ate (and finished eating)." It doesn't
mean "prior to today, I ate." {DaHjaj jISop} doesn't mean "today I ate
(and finished eating)"; it means "today I ate (but I didn't finish and
it's not ongoing)," which might be used for situations like nibbling
throughout the day, or consuming your doctor-recommended three meals a
day, or just a general "eating happened today and I'm not gonna say when
or how often."

> nor can I imagine referring to an ongoing action without strongly
> implying that it is actually happening at the time being referred
> to.

Which is exactly how it is used.

DaH jISoptaH
I am eating right now

wejlogh Qoylu'pu'DI' jISoptaH
I was eating at three o'clock
(notice that Okrand used the perfective suffix when he gave us this
time-telling device—it's not {wejlogh Qoylu'DI'})

> I'll close my end of this discussion with an observation on the
> problem of trying to apply too much extra-TKD context. We *know*
> that Okrand did not always use grammatical jargon precisely. The
> nominal Klingon "topic" marker suffix {-'e'} doesn't mean only what
> "topic" means in grammar texts, often indicating "focus" instead.

Okrand acknowledged this as an error on his part, not an intentionally
imprecise usage.

> The Klingon "relative clause" marker suffix {-bogh} doesn't mean
> everything that "relative clause" means in general.

He never says it does. He clearly defines the sort of relative clauses
that Klingon has.

> I do not believe that the Klingon suffix category labeled as "aspect"
> necessarily matches exactly what "aspect" means in non-Klingon
> grammar.

I still don't see any justification to the idea that Okrand was 
redefining linguistic terms. He explained them in very simple terms for 
laymen, but he *used* them correctly. He did not use his layman's terms 
as his own prescription.

The Type 7 suffixes are called "aspect" because they are four 
honest-to-goodness aspect suffixes: continuous, progressive, perfective, 
and accomplishment. We are told that Klingon does not express tense 
through suffixes, and the Type 7 suffixes should not be used as tense.

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