[Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes

[David Trimboli]

On 6/9/2012 2:50 AM, seruq wrote:
>
> cha'Hu' lengpu' ghaH.
> Does this mean that the traveling occurred all within a twenty-four hour period,
> two days ago?

Yes.

> What if he had been traveling for three days, but it was two days ago when he
> completed the traveling?
> cha'Hu' lengpu' ghaH.  qaStaHvIS wej jaj leng.

qaStaHvIS wej jaj lengtaH. cha'Hu' pawpu'.

> cha'Hu' leng ghaH - To me, this one means the traveling took place within a
> twenty-four hour period.

Since TKD says verbs without perfective or continuous markers usually 
mean the action is not completed and not continuous, it must mean he 
performed the act of traveling the day before yesterday, but you're just 
telling me that "traveling happened sometime that day." Since it's not 
continuous, you're not saying that he was already traveling the day 
before that (although he might have been), and you're not saying that he 
continued to travel yesterday (although he might have done), and you're 
not saying that the entire trip started and ended the day before 
yesterday (although it might have done). You're just stating the general 
truth that he engaged in movement from one place to another on that day.

> cha'Hu' lengchoH ghaH - He started sometime two days ago.  When did he complete
> it?  Don't know; doesn't say.

jIQochbe'.

Also:

cha'Hu' lengqa'
Two days ago, he was in a state of not traveling. Prior to that at some 
point he had been in a state of traveling. And on that day two days go 
he starts traveling again. When does he stop again? No information.

> cha'Hu' lengpu' ghaH - Two days ago his travels came to an end.  When did he
> start?  Don't know; doesn't say.

It does say. Perfective aspect means an action is considered as a whole 
without regard to its internal temporal flow. Something happens, and 
it's done. It doesn't have to be a short action, it just has to be 
described as an action that happens, and is done, without reference to 
how long it took or how it went in the meantime. This is the definition 
of perfective aspect.

What you describe, an unspecified time of activity followed by an end to 
the action, is what is known as perfect tense. It is tense, not aspect, 
and it is commonly confused with aspect. It is my claim that this list 
has incorrectly taught perfective aspect as being what is really known 
as perfect tense. You learned that meaning from those who were on the 
list before you, not from TKD, and not from a study of grammar.

There are examples in canon that support both meanings. There are some 
that demonstrate perfect tense (nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu') and some that 
demonstrate perfective aspect (loSmaH ben jIboghpu'). The overwhelming 
majority of canon does not carry either a perfective aspect or perfect 
tense meaning, and lacks a Type 7 suffix.

One possible explanation of phrases like {nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu'} is that 
Klingon's perfective suffixes include an aspect that means "action was 
occurring and then stopped." This would be in addition to its defined 
perfective meaning. In this case {nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu'} would be 
interpreted as a past-tense sentence, meaning "at some time in the past 
all the fuel was in the process of being consumed, and then it stopped 
being consumed (because it was all gone)."

> loSHu' lengchoH.  cha'Hu' lengpu'.  ...wejHu' lengtaH.

loSHu' lengchoH. cha'Hu' leng 'e' mev. wejHu' lengtaH.

> Some verbs (hit, kill, explode, shoot) do start and stop within a timestamp.
> They do not occur during a length of time.

It is not necessary for the action to be short, only that it be 
described as a whole from the outside, without internal structure. Brief 
actions and events are conducive to this because you rarely need to 
examine how it proceeds over time (like watching a slow-motion video of 
someone being slapped), but you can look at longer actions the same way. 
("In 387 BC the Gauls sacked Rome." It took longer than the span of a 
sword-swing, but stating it that way presents it as a completed whole 
that took place within the period of the timestamp. This is perfective 
aspect. In no way does it mean the Gauls started sacking Rome prior to 
387 and finished the job in 387.)

> If in a -pu'/-ta' the timestamp does mean that it starts and is completed within
> that timestamp, then does that mean if the traveling occurred in one day, we are
> ok; if it occurred in one week, we are ok; if it occurred in one month, we are
> ok, because we have timestamps for such spans of time?  But if the traveling
> occurred from four days ago to two days ago, then we have to recast, because how
> would we write a timestamp that means from four days ago to two days ago?

Exactly.

> I'm not arguing a point.  It's just that many of these arguments... er,
> discussions, tend to cause me to become confused.  Fortunately, colloquial usage
> (in the Earth languages I played in anyways) has more flexibility than the
> formal/proper structure of that language.

I agree completely. I do not advocate a rigid, inflexible interpretation 
of what's in the book (although certain parties like to paint me that 
way). Application must be sensible, and I think the correct answer is 
more complicated than either camp.

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