[Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes

[Robyn Stewart]

SuStel responded to one of my first story installments with his 
feelings about aspect suffixes and I've been thinking about them 
quite a lot since. I'm probably using more aspect markers than I 
might have otherwise. It seems that I think more in terms of "what 
does this sentence here need" than the definitions and meanings and 
general rules, so I am trying to apply examples to the discussion.

>1. Okrand's use of the perfective is focused on the end of the 
>action. It doesn't mention the totality of the action. It definitely 
>does not touch on the beginning of the action or its duration. Your 
>definition of the grammatical perfective includes the entire span of 
>the action, including the beginning. While this may be completely 
>accurate in other contexts, there is no evidence in TKD or in canon 
>that Okrand's version of the perfective aspect involves anything 
>except for the moment of completion of the action. It's all about 
>the goal or the end point.

I wondered what aspect suffixes SuStel or charghwI' would suggest adding to:

{SochHu' rIQqu'choH SuvwI'. wa'Hu' Hegh.}

"A week ago the warrior became badly wounded. Yesterday he died."

I'm happy with it the way it is. But I don't know if you would be. 
He's been dying for a week, so does that mean that the day he died 
it's not a perfective aspect?

{rIQqu' SuvwI'. wa'leS Heghpu'}

"The warrior is badly injured. By tomorrow he will be dead."

Would you add a continuous aspect to the first verb?

>{wa'Hu' 'uQ vISop.}
>
>I don't believe that is a grammatical error, even though it 
>describes a single event that occurred in its entirety during the 
>time span of the time stamp. I honestly believe you are the only 
>person in the Universe who might claim that it is an error because 
>it lacks {-pu'}.

Pretty much every example from Marc suggests that he would include 
the -pu'. I think it's possible that we've been in such abject terror 
of using -pu' to denote past tense that we haven't seen that Marc 
almost always uses it on an event that is over. I couldn't find any 
instance of him giiving a sentence like {quS vIlegh} and pointing out 
that it could be translated with English present, past OR future. He 
lists present and future as possible translations of an aspectless 
verb? Why did he leave out past in that paragraph if it could also be 
correct?  Oh that he had thrown in wa'Hu' instead of wa'leS as his 
example timestamp!

I can't think that I've read prose from SuStel and thought his use of 
aspect seemed wrong. Do we disagree on what sentences mean because we 
don't see aspect exactly the same way?  I don't know.

- Qov