[Tlhingan-hol] Fwd: Time and Type 7 verb suffixes

[David Trimboli]

On 6/7/2012 11:43 AM, André Müller wrote:
> I found two sentences of that kind, but I don't have the source in my list:
>
> vagh SanID ben buDbe' wamwI'pu'. ngugh Ho'Du'chaj lo' chaH, 'ach DaH
> tajmey lo'.
> «5,000 years ago, hunters were not lazy. Then (at that time) they used
> their teeth, but now they use knives.»
>
> Both sentences above refer to a time in the past and do not use any type
> 7 suffixe.

The first sentence describes a condition ("not lazy"), so no aspect 
applies. Both parts of the second sentence describe habits, so they also 
don't need aspect suffixes. There are no completed events being described.

> But we have for instance:
>
> loSmaH ben jIboghpu'.
> «I am 40 years old.»

This is the quintissential example of perfective aspect. When this 
sentence first appeared, and I thought -pu' meant "finished prior to the 
time context," I hated this sentence, because it only made sense if you 
twisted logic to say "it's fifty days after my birthday of this year, so 
exactly 40 years ago it was fifty days after the date of my birth, and 
my being born was already done by then."

With a perfective interpretation, the sentence makes sense without 
mental gymnastics: "40 years ago, my being born occurred and was done."

> Aspect, tense and the interaction of the two (as in English) are really
> damn complex. I read the famous book on Tense and Aspect by Bernard
> Comrie, but still I feel always unsure about them. I'm waiting for a
> consense in this discussion. ;)

Qochlu' net mevba'Qo'...

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