[Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes

[Robyn Stewart]

I don't have a problem with anything SuStel has said here.

At 11:23 '?????' 6/7/2012, David Trimboli wrote:
>On 6/7/2012 12:40 PM, Robyn Stewart wrote:
>>
>>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?
>
>In this context, {wa'Hu' Hegh} would probably mean that yesterday he 
>experienced that condition known as "dying." {wa'Hu Heghpu'} would 
>mean that yesterday he finally experienced the event of his life ending.
>
>The difference is that the perfective tells us about the temporal 
>structure of the action. It occurs and is over with. I think this is 
>really what you mean. The way you have written it isn't 
>ungrammatical; it just doesn't mean exactly what you want.
>
>>{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?
>
>Without {-taH}, the sentence just tells me the warrior's condition, 
>kind of like looking at a medical chart and noting a condition. With 
>{-taH} you are describing the ongoing nature of his injury. "Bad 
>injury is occurring." It gives the injury a temporal shape, telling 
>us it's not just the name of a condition, but that it is ongoing, 
>experienced over time.
>
>Which one you choose depends on what you want to say. It's not that 
>a given objective situation requires an aspect suffix or none; it's 
>that to express a particular viewpoint requires an aspect suffix or 
>none. To express a whole, completed event, use -pu' or -ta'. To 
>express an ongoing event, use -taH or -lI'. To express an action 
>that is neither completed nor ongoing, such as conditions, habits, 
>recurrances, and general truths, use no Type 7 suffixes at all. To 
>get any of these meanings, you must ("usually," when other rules 
>don't apply, like the aspects of -choH or -qa', for instance) follow 
>those rules or else you're expressing the thing you've written 
>instead of the thing you mean.
>
>--
>SuStel
>http://www.trimboli.name/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
>http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol