[Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes

[David Trimboli]

On 6/6/2012 5:44 PM, lojmIt tI'wI'nuv wrote:
> My response to SuStel apparently bombed because it got too long. I will
> work to be concise, and start over.
>
> Instead of just trying to have a "I'm right and you are wrong" contest,
> I'm going to describe my understanding of how Klingon deals with the
> absence of tense, and how the Type 7 verb suffix fits into this, and
> clarify the difference I believe exists between Sustel and myself in the
> interpretation of page 40 in KTD. I promise to try REALLY HARD to not
> create a straw man argument, in any way misinterpreting what SuStel is
> trying to say in order to belittle his argument. I may fail, but this is
> an honest effort. I wanted to respond in line, but the message failed to
> get through because his text and mind combined is too long for this list.
>
> In English, we have a time line with a single point "the present" that
> is the boundary between the "past" and "future". The present is the end
> of the past and the beginning of the future, though it is contained
> within neither. It is the boundary.
>
> A lot of English grammar is based upon this time structure. If I say in
> English, "Yesterday, I go to the store," then I just made a grammatical
> error because we are required to express tense as part of the verb form,
> and the time stamp "Yesterday" is a deictic reference planted firmly in
> the past tense.
>
> Klingon doesn't have a single, absolute structure for how a verb's
> action fits on a time line. There is no tense. "Now" and "yesterday" are
> both equally valid time references with an important difference. "Now"
> is brief. "Yesterday is 24 hours long. In Klingon, it refers to the time
> beginning at sunrise yesterday and ending at sunrise today.
>
> Tense doesn't give you a shape on the time line. You just know that a
> past tense verb touched the time line some time before now. A present
> tense verb is touching the time line now. A future tense verb touches
> the time line after now.
>
> There's a confusing similarity between the past tense and the present
> perfect. The present perfect informs you that action was completed
> before the present. Past tense informs you that the action occurred
> before now.
>
> I ate dinner. (Past)
>
> I have eaten dinner. (Present perfect)

To be completely accurate and fully informative, you should call it 
"present perfect *tense*." The present perfect is a tense.

> The difference between these two is more important in Klingon than in
> English, which confuses people.
>
> Instead of tense, Klingon uses "time stamps". It is very similar to the
> way Klingon deals with location. The locative, like the time stamp,
> comes at the beginning of a sentence, if it is included at all. Both are
> optional.

In fact, time stamps are still tense, only they're not expressed with 
the verb.

> While in English, we are required to get the tense right in every verb
> in every sentence, in Klingon, a time stamp or a locative in one
> sentence can become the context that is assumed as unchanged while we
> speak or write entire conversations or novel length books. In general, a
> time stamp or a locative helps the listener/reader establish the context
> of things being said, and since in many areas of grammar Klingon abhors
> redundancy, once the time or location is established, unless it changes,
> it becomes part of the "context" and tends not to be repeated.
>
> Hence, Okrand's explanation in TKD that it's like you say, "Today, I go
> to the store." "Yesterday, I go to the store." "Tomorrow, I go to the
> store." There is no change in verb form relating to the concept of tense.
>
> The thing that's not obvious to people who haven't worked with the
> language much is that in Klingon, a time stamp implies a duration as
> well as a reserved spot on the time line, much the way that a locative
> implies an area that has both a location and a size. That's where the
> gotcha comes in when dealing with a Type 7 verb suffix.
>
> If I say {DaH 'uQ vISoppu'}, then I've said "Now, I have eaten dinner."
> This is equal the the English sentence, "I have eaten dinner."

It is not equal. It is similar, and it can be translated with that 
sentence, but it is not identical in meaning. The Klingon does not 
express the present perfect tense. It expresses the perfective aspect 
(which you haven't gotten to talking about yet) in a verb that happens 
"now."

> But if I say, {wa'Hu' 'uQ vISoppu'}, then it's not quite accurate to
> translate that as "I had eaten dinner yesterday." It's actually hard to
> accurately translate it because there is no exact equivalent in English
> without further context. What it really means is, "Either before
> yesterday started, or at some point during the full span of yesterday,
> from sunrise to sunrise, I finished eating dinner."
>
> I'm not saying anything about when I started dinner. I'm not saying
> anything about how long I ate dinner. I'm just saying that on a time
> line, the end point of the action of my eating dinner occurred during or
> before the Klingon version of yesterday.

And this is where you go wrong. Perfective aspect *does* tell you when 
you started, in that it considers the start *and* the end of the action, 
and speaks of them as a whole with no visible internal structure. This 
is the very definition of what perfective aspect means.

What has led you to the conclusion that the Klingon does not consider 
anything about when you start to eat? I reach my conflicting conclusion 
with the definition of perfective aspect, which is what Okrand calls 
{-pu'}. What leads you to *your* conclusion? Where in the text do you 
see anything that says "does not consider the start of the action, only 
when it is completed"?

If you can tell me where in the text it says this, you will have won the 
argument. Seriously.

> Notice that I could describe the exact same event with the words {wa'Hu'
> 'uQ vISop.}
>
> The real difference between these two is that in the first version, I'm
> placing the end of the event of my eating dinner during or before
> yesterday, while in the second version, I'm expressing that the action
> of my eating occurred during the span of yesterday. If the beginning,
> middle and end of my eating dinner all happened during yesterday, both
> statements are accurate. Using {-pu'} simply emphasizes that the
> completion of the action occurred during or before the time span of the
> time stamp.

TKD says using {-pu'} means the action being performed is completed. It 
doesn't say that the completion is what happens during the time context. 
As far as I'm concerned, the *action* happens during the time stamp, and 
it is simply marked as a "completed action," and explicitly not an 
"incomplete action."

> Replace {wa'Hu'} with {wa'leS} and you've simply moved the time stamp.
> Everything else about both statements remains the same.
>
> Time references are part of context for the action of the verb, either
> established at the beginning of a sentence, or at some earlier point in
> the conversation, or assumed to be mutually understood because of...
> context.
>
> Type 7 suffixes don't tell you when something happened. They combine
> with the time stamp to describe the shape of the action along the time
> line. {-taH} has no beginning or end within the scope of the time stamp.
> {-pu'} and {-ta'} both have an ending that occurs before or during the
> scope of the time stamp. {-lI'} has an ending that occurs during or
> after the scope of the time stamp.

You're so close.

{-taH} is already in progress when we enter our time span, and it 
continues to be in progress when we leave our time span.

{-lI} is in progress when we enter our time span, and it continues to be 
in progress when we leave our time span, but we also know that there is 
an identified stopping point.

{-pu'} is not occurring before our time span or after it. It occurs 
entirely within the span, but we're not told how long it lasts.

{-ta'} is exactly the same as {-pu'}, except we're told that the action 
was performed for a purpose that is achieved.

> The difference of opinion that started the argument with SuStel is that
> I believe that a Type 7 suffix is, like a locative or a time stamp, or a
> plural suffix on a noun, optional. It's presence can enhance the context
> of the action of the verb, but its absence implies nothing reliable in
> terms of meaning.
 >
> As an analog, I can point to a tree and say, "Look at that tall tree,"
> or I can say, "Look at that tree," and mean exactly the same thing. The
> word "tall" colors the meaning some and may be significant, but the
> second command does not imply that the tree is short. I believe that
> Type 7 suffixes are like that.
>
> SuStel suggests that in every instance that a Type 7 suffix would be
> appropriate, it is required, and that the absence of a Type 7 suffix
> implies specific meaning. He points to page 40 in TKD, where it says:
>
> "The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means the action is not
> completed and is not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things
> indicated by the Type 7 suffixes). Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are
> translated by the English simple present tense."
>
> He places no weight on the word "usually"

Sure I do. I think it means "except for when other elements of the 
sentence override the aspectual meaning." For instance, {tujqu'choH QuQ}.

> and takes a hard line on what
> it means to omit any Type 7 suffix on a verb. Since he assumes that the
> Type 7 suffix is required at all times whenever a verb's action is
> completed or continuous,

That is, whenever you are expressing a concept that has a completed or 
continuous meaning. If you choose to describe an event that is known to 
history to be done with in an imperfective, non-continuous way, perhaps 
you have a reason to do so. But it still means what it says: lack of a 
Type 7 will mean imperfective, non-continuous action if not overridden.

> or "one of the things indicated by the Type 7
> suffixes", then IT MUST BE SOMETHING ELSE. Pondering what this
> "something else" must mean, he has determined that it must imply that
> the action of the verb doesn't have one of the shapes on a time line
> described by Type 7. It must be a general trend or a habit or some other
> imperfective, non-continuous action.
>
> He asked me to describe what I believed his argument was. This is my
> limited understanding of his argument. There are other details, and
> there are some inconsistencies, but these are the elements that have
> been most strongly emphasized that I have managed to take in.

You've got it right, except for the "hard line" and "no weight" bits.

> I won't argue that the absence of a Type 7 suffix can't mean what he
> says it means. I simply argue that the word "usually" deserves a lot of
> weight, given a lot of canon that has been given translations a lot
> simpler than they would need to have were they to follow SuStel's strict
> interpretation.

As far as I can see, your interpretation of "usually" means "whenever I 
feel like it," and "not actually very often."

Aside from paq'batlh, which I have not read, can you point out what 
canon (a) violates my interpretation, or (b) becomes cumbersome because 
of it? These are the accusations you have aimed at me.

> I mean, if we are going to be THAT strict and overlook "usually", then
> why let go of Okrand's advice of translating all these verbs without
> Type 7 suffixes as simple present tense? I doubt that SuStel wants that.

Because you can't accurately translate tenseless, aspect-laden verbs 
into English. You absolutely cannot say them in English. Okrand states 
how the perfective suffix will "often" be translated with English 
present perfect tense, and then goes on to show three examples:

Daleghpu' / you have seen it
vIneHpu' / I wanted them
qaja'pu' / I told you

two of which are past tense and not present perfect at all! He's not 
saying {-pu'} is past perfect at all! He's saying he'll choose whatever 
sounds closest in English, which he predicts will tend to be the present 
perfect.

> Okrand wrote TKD while he was in the process of inventing the language.
> It's like the pirate code. It's not a strict law. "It's more of a
> guideline, really." Okrand has repeatedly told us to look to canon
> (though sometimes this involves painful eye rolling). There are a lot of
> verbs in canon without Type 7. It requires extreme contortions to
> interpret every single one of them by SuStel's inflexible, absolute
> instructions.

First of all, let's drop the "inflexible, absolute." The interpretation 
isn't this, and you're just trying to burden my side with pejorative 
adjectives.

Now, I heartily invite you to show me canon that violate my 
interpretation, or that requires extreme contortions to come to my 
interpretation. Rather than merely claiming that canon supports your 
side, show me the evidence. Back it up with facts.

> I respect SuStel a lot.

Uh-oh. Here comes the weird part where you get melodramatic.

> He has made many great contributions to the KLI and to our understanding
> of the language in general. I am saddened to read him saying that he
> "usually gets this treatment". I know that I'm guilty many times of
> disagreeing with him, but I also know that many times I completely agree
> with him in many of his arguments with others, and his opinions have
> informed mine on many occasions.
>
> I also know that if you walk into a bar with a drawn knife you are more
> likely to find a bar fight than if you just walk in a bar. Inserting
> words like "required" where they didn't exist and saying what things
> "cannot" mean, when TKD didn't say "cannot" is the drawn knife.
>
> At times, our ongoing disagreements have gotten quite toxic, enough that
> I honestly felt like "this town ain't big enough for the both of us,"
> and when I felt that, I left because I honestly felt that the community
> would suffer at least as much for the loss of him as for the loss of me,
> and perhaps he would suffer more of a loss than I without the community
> than I would. That is a deep sign of respect, whether it has been
> recognized or not.
>
> My hope was that over time, the intensity of disagreement would cool and
> we could both participate here without the flames and insults, anger and
> hurt feelings. I still have that hope.
>
> Meanwhile, as much as I do respect SuStel, I do not believe that I do
> good service to him or anybody else to step down on this issue and say,
> "Sure, go ahead and add whatever new rule to Type 7 that you want. Make
> people use it in lots of settings that they otherwise would comfortably
> omit it, and misinterpret their meaning often when they do omit it
> because you demand that the absence of a Type 7 suffix universally and
> without exception implies a specific meaning about continuity and
> completion of the action, interpreted as a general trend, a habit, or
> some other form of non-continuous, incomplete action."
>
> I'm just not going there. I sincerely believe SuStel to be mistaken. It
> happens. I make mistakes. He makes mistakes. It's okay.
>
> But we can only learn if we reconsider things and come to some vague
> semblance of agreement on how to use the language, and if only one guy
> thinks that the absence of a Type 7 suffix on a verb has as much
> specific meaning as the presence of a Type 7 suffix, then that guy is
> not talking the same language as the rest of us. He's starting a
> dialect, spoken by one guy.
>
> Unless there are others out there who think that the absence of a Type 7
> suffix always as much specific meaning as the presence of it, and that
> these people can always tell us exactly what that specific meaning is.
>
> So much for being concise. I tried. I failed.
>
> pItlh
> lojmIt tI'wI'nuv

I appreciate the work that went into writing this message. I would ask 
you to look through my comments again and seriously consider removing 
the idea that I'm proposing something inflexible or absolute, and that 
you would back up your claims that treating {-pu'} as actual grammatical 
perfective would fail to match canon and would require extreme contortions.

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