[Tlhingan-hol] Type 7

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv]

Okay, I've been through the entire TKD looking for evidence one way or the other on the two proposals by SuStel that I've been having difficulties with:

1. When a Type 7 suffix can apply to a verb, it MUST apply to the verb. If an action is continuous, or complete, you can't use the verb without using a Type 7 suffix. Omitting a Type 7 suffix indicates a lack of continuity or completion. This omission of a Type 7 suffix requires us to interpret the action as a general trend or a habit or some other discontinuous, incomplete action.

2. Verbs with {-pu'} or {-ta'} refer only to actions that begin, proceed and end, all during the time period indicated by the time stamp. The perfective does not focus on the end point of the action. It implies the entire duration of the action.

As usual, canon can raise as many questions as it answers. Like with the common:

page 70: nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'? "Where is the bathroom?"

Compare that to:

page 27: pa'Daq jIHtaH. "I'm in the room."

and page 68: tlhIngan jIH. "I am a Klingon."

Are we to believe that my being in a room is more continuous than my being a Klingon? Is my location in the room more continuous than the location of the toilet?

On page 69, we have two examples right next to each other:

nughoStaH nuq? "What is coming toward us?"
nuq Dalegh? "What do you see?"

What is there about the action of coming toward us that is more continuous than the action of seeing? Are we really forced to interpret the second question as, "What are you in the habit of seeing?" or "What do you have the general trend of seeing, in a discontinuous, incomplete kind of way?"

This and lots, and I do mean LOTS of examples show that the presence or absence of a Type 7 suffix is optional. Very, very optional. The absence of a Type 7 suffix signifies nothing.

It's similar to what Okrand explains on page 43:

"The suffix {-taH} /continuous/ can be used whether there is a known goal or not. {-lI'}, on the other hand, can be used only when there is an implied goal."

You do not NEED to use any specific Type 7 suffix unless you want to. If it helps you make yourself clearer, do it. If you don't care about it, don't worry. It doesn't make that much difference.

Given SuStel's interpretation of Type 7, EVERY INSTANCE of a verb like {qIp} needs either {-pu'} or {-ta'} because the duration of the action is so short, it's impossible to do it without completing the action, unless we are talking about a habit of hitting or a general trend of hitting. There's no evidence of this in TKD. I doubt there's evidence in other canon.

TKD has quite a few uses of the verb {qIp} both with and without Type 7. Universally, when he uses it, the translation indicates either the present perfect tense (which Okrand himself calls "present perfect" and not "present perfect tense", though SuStel has corrected me for making the same error Okrand makes) or the past tense. It's got nothing to do with the wholeness of the action. It is solely based upon the end of the action occurring before the time setting of the sentence. Not during. Before.

Everything I said earlier about time stamps having a duration is stuff KLI has worked out on our own. It's not in TKD anywhere. It might even be wrong. It seems reasonable, and I'd guess that Okrand would say it's okay, but we don't have anything established to prove it.

In particular, consider:

wa'Hu' 'uQ vISoppu'.

While I want it to mean that I started dinner, ate dinner and finished dinner yesterday, given what I've seen in TKD, it may very well be that what I'm really saying is that I had finished dinner before yesterday happened. Just going with TKD, I have no justification for assuming that the end of the action can occur during the time stamp. {-pu'} may require completion BEFORE even the BEGINNING of the time stamp. Somebody definitely ought to ask Okrand about this. It's not clear.

It's interesting that while there are quite a few imperative sentences in TKD, there's only one with a Type 7 suffix, and it is offered as the example he expects to clarify the meaning of {-taH}. It marks the difference between making a single evasive maneuver, vs. taking ongoing evasive action. This is odd. 

In particular, given SuStel's interpretation, I'd honestly expect most imperative sentences to put {-ta'} on the verb. I'm telling you to accomplish the task I'm assigning you. I'm not satisfied if you merely start the task. I want you to FINISH the task. If {yIjuntaH} means "Take evasive action!", then why not translate "Execute an evasive maneuver!}" as {yIjunta'!}? It certainly makes sense that way, especially when you see examples like on page 66:

qama'pu' vIjonta' vIneH. "I wanted to capture prisoners."

If I gave the order, why shouldn't I say, {qama'pu' yIjonta'!} It's clear that it's not illegal to put a Type 7 on an imperative. Okrand's done it. But he hasn't done it much. And in particular, he hasn't used {-ta'} on an imperative. What's with that? The Type 7 suffix, while seemingly appropriate, clearly isn't required.

How about page 47:
chenHa'moHlaH "It can destroy them."

What is discontinuous or incomplete about its ability to destroy them? Why isn't it {chenHa'moHlaHtaH}?

Is this enough? There's lots more, but I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. Can we give it a rest?

I do thank SuStel for pushing me to look at TKD again. It's been a very long time. My wife is pissed at me for doing this, but I suppose it's worth it. I would not have questioned the issue of perfective action occurring during the duration of a time stamp without this review of TKD. Now, I do, and so SuStel has changed my opinion of a feature of Klingon grammar, albeit not quite the feature he was trying to affect.

lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
lojmIttI7wI7nuv at gmail.com