[Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?

[David Trimboli]

On 6/5/2012 3:51 PM, lojmIt tI'wI'nuv wrote:

> In this single area of grammar, I get the sense that your personal,
> passionate, focussed study into linguistics has connected to an idea
> about language in general and you've come to a conclusion about the
> Type 7 verb suffix that simply doesn't fit either the description in
> TKD or the majority of canon.

It fits exactly. The majority of canon supports my opinion completely. I
do not have paq'batlh, so I cannot comment on it, and I consider it
suspect anyway, since it was edited by individuals who hold the
erroneous definition of aspect that I am fighting against.

> But there's nothing there to differentiate between talking about a
> single instance of an action vs. a general trend of an action taking
> place, except, of course, as always, context.

First of all, my point is not simply single instance vs. general trend.
You've already made that error in interpreting my purpose. It is
"concrete event on a timeline" vs. "general trend, habit, regularity,
truth, condition, and other things that can be described as imperfective
but not continuous." And it is also "Klingon perfective does not mean
"completed before time context of sentence."

> We have tools, like adverbials, like {reH, not, pIj, ghaytan}, or
> suffixes like {-qa'}, but Type 7 verb suffixes are not as required
> as you want them to be. They simply aren't.

No, they're not. But if you don't include them, they indicate a lack of
either perfective or continuous meaning. And those are the meanings that
hold the implication of "event that really did occur/is occurring/will
occur."

> The word "usually" in the quoted text on page 40 in TKD cannot be
> ignored, if you want to understand most of the canon Okrand has
> written. The only time that a Type 7 suffix is required is when
> aspect is an important part of the meaning of the sentence,

How do you come to equate the "usually" with "when aspect is an
important part of the meaning"? Is that not a leap without evidence?

In any case, I complete agree with your last sentence there. "The only
time that a Type 7 suffix is required is when aspect is an important
part of the meaning of the sentence." Absolutely. If aspect is not
important, don't use it. If you think I mean otherwise, you're not
getting it.

> Without context, {qayaj} can either mean, "right now, in response to
> the single thing you just said, I understand you," or it can mean
> "for all the time that I've known you, I generally understand you,
> and I anticipate understanding you for the rest of our common time
> on this spiritual plane." The language simply doesn't differentiate
> between these without further context.

Without context, {qayaj} cannot mean "right now, in response to the
single thing you just said, I understand you." Without context, there is
no "right now," there is no "in response," and there is no "single thing
you just said." Don't you see that you're adding the context and
claiming it's not context?

Without context, {qayaj} means "at some point I haven't specified, in
some manner that is neither completed nor continuous, I understand you."

{DaH qayaj} means "right now I understand you in some manner that is
neither completed nor continuous." This is perfectly valid: it just says
that you are in a state of understanding at this very moment. It doesn't
say anything about how you felt a moment ago, how you will feel a moment
from now, or whether your understanding is in a finished state.

{DaH qayajtaH} means "right now I understand you in a continuous
manner." It means that prior to now I understood you, and I will
continue to understand you for some time to come.

> In fact, I'd be more inclined to expect that {qayajtaH} suggests the
> general trend rather than the single instance.

{-taH} can be used in general trends. {batlh Daqawlu'taH} "you will be
remembered with honor, continuously at no time period I'd care to specify."

> And if I wish to say, "In this instance, I understand you," then it
> would be difficult for me to find the right aspect suffix to
> describe it, since {qayajtaH} suggests no end to my understanding
> you,

It doesn't suggest no end to understanding; it indicates understanding
prior to the time context, during the time context, and after the time
context. Not necessarily forever. That's {reH}. {DaH qayaj} will suffice
for "in this instance I understand you." You're not describing the
temporal flow of the understanding.

> which I don't wish to suggest, and {qayajlI'} suggests a foreseeable
> end to the understanding, as well as a goal, which really doesn't fit
> my intent, and {qayajpu'} suggests that I no longer understand you
> because the process of my understanding you has been completed and
> no longer continues, as does {qayajta'}.

No, it doesn't. {qayajpu'} doesn't mean I understood you and now I 
don't. That's using {-pu'} as perfect tense. It means I came to 
understand you and the act of my understanding you is completed. It is 
described as a begun and completed action. {meqlIj DaQIjpu'DI' qayajpu'}

> You came to the conclusion based on what may have been a perfect
> argument in some other context, but here, in Klingon grammar, there
> is no connection that requires a Type 7 suffix on a verb in order to
> differentiate an instance vs. a trend.

You are presenting my argument as a beginning and and end, chopping out 
the middle to make it look like magic. I don't appreciate that. Can you 
actually reproduce my argument, even if you don't agree with it?

> You are often quite right and you teach the rest of us by bringing
> important perspectives to the discussion of how this language works.

No, I get this treatment most of the time.

> qavuvtaH. It may not be obvious, but it is true.

See, now here I'd prefer to see {qavuv}. It would be a description of 
your general feelings without a duration or shape over time. Or perhaps 
you really did mean {qavuvtaH}, which given the context of the 
conversation comes out as "I came into this conversation respecting you, 
and I leave the conversation still respecting you." If that's what you 
were trying to express then I agree with your way of saying it.

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