[Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes

[De'vID]

De'vID:
> An instructor might bark:
>
> {vIghro''a' yIlol} "strike the Tiger stance!"
>
> {vIghro''a' yIloltaH} "maintain the Tiger stance!"
>
> If you've watched enough martial arts movies, you'll know what the
> difference is.  You'll also know that if you do one when he means the other,
> you will be reprimanded.

ghunchu'wI':
> [I will temporarily suppress my belief that {lol} does not have a transitive
> meaning.]

I just assumed {lol} can take an object, but it's true that it might
not.  In any case, if Klingons name their martial arts stances, they
have to have some way to refer to which one when giving an instruction
to be in that stance.

ghunchu'wI':
> I don't watch martial arts movies, so I'll have to take your word for it.

Okay.  Let's imagine a Klingon fashion photographer then, taking
photos of a Klingon supermodel.  (I thought the martial arts scenario
would be more "realistic", but whatever.)

He orders her:
{yIlol} "strike a pose!" - after the camera flash goes off, she can
relax immediately

He orders her:
{yIloltaH} "maintain the pose" - after the flash goes off, she has to
continue to remain still because she expects him to take several more
photos of her in that pose, and she holds that pose until he says
{yIleS} or otherwise overrides the previous order or it's clear the
shoot is over.

ghunchu'wI':
> But you're apparently arguing on the side that says the suffix is needed
> when you want to *express* the aspect, and not required when the aspect is
> unimportant.

No, I'm not.  I'm saying that the verb (and hence the command) means
something different when used with and without {-taH}.  It's just that
in some contexts both meanings will elicit a similar reaction.  But in
other contexts, they won't.

If a photographer says {yIlol}, the model can relax after the shot;
she has his explicit permission to do so. If she maintains her pose,
she's doing more than she was asked.  (This is probably not the
expected reaction; maybe she's inexperienced and doesn't realise she
can relax, or she's indicating that she likes the pose so much she
wants more pictures taken in it, or she wants the picture retaken
because she was dissatisfied with the angle of the shot.)  If he says
{yIloltaH}, however, she would be wrong to relax after the first
camera flash goes off.

When a martial arts instructor tells a student {yIlol}, he is
explicitly telling him to be prepared to fall back into ready position
or to strike another pose, or at least that he is permitted to do
those things; if he says {yIloltaH}, he is explicitly indicating that
the student should try to maintain the same pose regardless of what
happens, that is, he is not permitted to do those things.

If the instructor orders {yIlol}, then attacks the student, the
student must *begin* his defense in the pose, but is free to switch to
another defensive position or even to retaliate.  If the instructor
orders {yIloltaH}, the student has to *maintain* his defense in the
pose; if the instructor's attack forces him out of pose, he has to
return to the pose.  If the student maintains the pose when the
instructor had only ordered {yIlol}, he is not making full use of the
repertoire of moves available to him (which may earn a compliment or a
reprimand, depending on context; he is either demonstrating that he is
more capable in the pose than the instructor expected, or that he is
foolishly inflexible).  But if the instructor had ordered {yIloltaH}
and he doesn't maintain his pose (or doesn't return immediately to it
if forced out temporarily), he has definitely failed.  So these are,
in fact, two very different orders which must never be confused.

Note that the instructor has a third option available: {yIlol 'ach
yIloltaHQo'}.  For example, if the instructor had ordered {yIlol}, the
student had {loltaH} instead, and the instructor wants the student to
learn that the initial pose is a highly flexible one from which the
student can adapt his defense as appropriate to the style of attack,
he can tell him explicitly, "*strike* the pose (be in the pose, but
not continuously, only temporarily), but don't *hold* the pose".

This is how I think {-taH} and its absence works:
- {lol} [call this {lol1}] strike the pose; there's no expectation
that it would be maintained, and explicit permission to leave it (and
if it is maintained, it's doing more than was asked, which may or may
not be wrong)
- {loltaH} (strike and) hold the pose (it would be wrong to fall out of pose)
- {lol 'ach loltaHQo'} strike the pose; but explicitly don't hold it
(it would be wrong to maintain the pose)

If {-taH} is optional, this is how things would work (which is what I
think you believe):
- {lol} [call this {lol2}] strike the pose; holding it may or may not
be optional (and there's no way to tell except for other context);
i.e., this could mean {lol1} OR {loltaH}
- {loltaH} as above
- {lol 'ach loltaHQo'} as above

The two usages are very close, and differ only in the meaning of {lol}
(with no suffix), only in some contexts.  Probably, most of the time,
we'll understand each other perfectly.  However, if {-taH} is
optional, then there is no simple way to express {lol1}: strike the
pose, but you don't have to maintain it.  This is not merely a
difference in emphasis, but a difference in meaning, albeit a subtle
one.

I think this may be clearer with the verb {chop}.  If I command my
{Qogh} to {'uSDaj chop}, I expect it to bite the target's leg (it has
to clamp down on the target's leg with its mouth, but it's okay if the
target gets away).  If he clamps down on the leg and doesn't let go,
he's fulfilled my order, but is going beyond what I commanded.  Maybe
I don't mind, or maybe I'll clarify by saying, {choptaHQo'}, i.e.,
"No, I said bite his leg, not gnaw it, let him go!"  If I command
{'uSDaj choptaH}, he *has* to clamp down and hold onto the target's
leg.  From a *grammatical* point of view, {-taH} is not optional
because it changes the meaning of the verb.  Without {-taH}, {chop}
just means "bite".  With {-taH}, {choptaH} means "gnaw", "bite and
don't let go".  "Gnawing" is a form of "biting", but the difference
isn't merely one of emphasis (it's different enough that English has a
separate word for the concept with continuous aspect).  If I say
"bite", I mean "bite", but I'll probably accept "gnaw" as a form of
"bite" (in many contexts); if I intend to express "gnaw", however, I
*cannot* merely say "bite" (in most contexts).

ghunchu'wI':
> The first sentence is definitely not commanding the student to
> have a tendency to be in the pose, or to be in the habit of doing so, or
> have the pose as a basic attribute of his existence, or whatever else it is
> that a verb unmarked for aspect is said to indicate.

I was also initially confused by SuStel's use of "habit" and
"propensity" to describe the verb without a Type 7 suffix.  A verb
without a Type 7 suffix *does* indicate propensity, e.g., {Ha'DIbaH
Sop} "he eats meat", "he has a propensity to eat meat", "he is a
meat-eater".  However, it does not *only* indicate those things.  It
indicates that an action "is not completed and is not continuous".
One of those meanings is "habit", but it is not the only one.  And
obviously, in the context of ordering someone to do something, the
"habit" meaning is usually not the right one.  (But there are contexts
where it is.  For example, if a doctor tells a sick vegetarian
{Ha'DIbaH yISop} in his office, he is not telling the patient to eat
meat *right now*, he's telling him he should eat meat (in a habitual
way).)

In the context of a command, the absence of a Type 7 suffix means "do
it (in a non-continuous and non-completed way)".  With {-taH}, it
means "do it (in a continuous way, in the continuous sense of the base
verb)".  At least, that's how I understand the sentence from TKD p.40
as it relates to imperatives.

ghunchu'wI':
> It seems to be
> commanding something which is inherently an ongoing action, but where the
> idea of continuous action is not important to call attention to by making it
> explicit.

No, {lol} is *not* an inherently ongoing action.  It means to be in
the stance, not to hold it.  {chop} is also not an ongoing action.  It
means to take a bite, not to bite onto something and not let go.
Similarly, {'uch} means grasp (take a hold of something), not hold
onto something.  None of these are *inherently* ongoing actions.  They
may each indicate an ongoing action in a particular context, but the
verbs themselves, without {-taH}, don't convey continuous aspect, and
specifically convey the lack of continuous aspect.

With some verbs such as {'uch}, the natural consequence of doing the
action is to keep doing it.  Once you've grasped something, the
default state is to keep holding onto it.  So, in most contexts,
{'uch} implies {'uchtaH}.  With some other verbs such as {chop},
{-taH} may or may not be implied.  If I ask you to {chop} my freshly
baked {ro'qegh'Iwchab}, I'm asking you to take a bite of it, that is,
to separate a chunk of it into your mouth, not to gnaw on it (I hope
it's not so tough that biting it forces you to gnaw on it).  If I
command my {Qogh} to {chop} an enemy's leg, I'm commanding it to bite
the leg, but I probably don't mind if he doesn't let go, although I
might.  If I give my {Qogh} a bone, I have to order it to {choptaH}
it, not merely {chop} it, though it'll probably understand me if I
merely said {chop}.  So {chop} may or may not imply {choptaH}.

With {lol}, however, there is in fact usually a clear difference in
meaning between {lol} and {loltaH}. If a photographer orders a model
to {lol}, and she keeps standing there after he's taken the shot,
she's either inexperienced or confused or deliberately sending him a
message to take more photos.  If an instructor tells a student {lol}
or {loltaH} and this is followed by nothing else, his reaction will be
the same either way: he will maintain the stance.  But if he attacks
the student after the order, what the student is permitted or expected
to do in response is completely different.

The rule on TKD p.40 allows exceptions ("usually").  I think you're
reading the rule in the wrong direction, i.e., I think you're taking
the exceptions to be the rule and the rule to be the exceptions.  As I
interpret it, it says that {-taH} and its absence are (usually)
meaningful.  There are some verbs where the base or bare verb
(usually, in most contexts) implies a continuity of the action, such
as {'uch}.  If someone grasps ({'uch}) something, he'll *usually* hold
onto ({'uchtaH}) it, because that's the natural thing to do in most
cases.  But just because you will be understood if you say {'uch} when
you mean {'uchtaH}, it doesn't mean that {-taH} is optional (for most
verbs in most contexts).  I can easily imagine a context where the
difference in meaning between {'uch} and {'uchtaH} is important.  For
example, suppose the context is a game where you have to obtain an
object, but depending on the circumstances either have to hold on to
it or optionally get rid of it (like rugby or American football).  In
describing the rules of the game, the difference between {'uch} and
{'uchtaH} would be clear.

ghunchu'wI':
> The command {yItaD} is likewise none of those things, obviously implies that
> the one commanded is to maintain his lack of movement, and has the added
> bonus of being an example from KGT.

I think {yItaD} "be frozen" implies {yItaDtaH} "keep frozen" in the
same way that {yI'uch} "grasp it, grab it" implies {yI'uchtaH} "hold
it".  Sure, in many contexts, that's the implication.  But that
implication is not *necessary*, and it's a function of the meaning of
the verb {taD} and other context rather than of the (lack of) Type 7
suffix (i.e., the implication is a result of the semantics rather than
the syntax).

KGT says that in the idiomatic sense of "not move", {taD} is treated
as an activity, like {yIt}.  These are both verbs which, in many
contexts, imply a continuous action.  But they don't have to.  For
example, imagine a game where a playing piece can be made to walk to a
destination, or be put into a state where it keeps walking until it is
made to do something else.  If I say {yIyIt}, it would mean "walk (but
come to a stop)", whereas {yIyIttaH} would mean "walk (in a continuous
way)".  If I *mean* {yIyIttaH}, I *cannot* just say {yIyIt}, because
the latter implies the action "is not continuous".

Actually, I think the idiomatic sense of {taD} works similarly to
{lol}.  If a martial arts instructor tells his student, in the middle
of a series of movements, to {taD}, the student has to freeze in the
current state (or as soon as is practical).  If the instructor then
makes a move to attack, and the student reacts, the student has done
nothing wrong.  But if the instructor had ordered {taDtaH}, not only
does the student have to freeze, but if the instructor then makes a
move to attack, and the student flinches, he has failed.  Or consider
the photographer and model again: {yItaD} "Hold it (for a moment)"
(implies a non-continuous action; she is free to relax after one
photo) vs. {yItaDtaH} "Keep still" (implies maintaining stillness
until told otherwise, an ongoing activity).

The only example we have of {yItaD} (actually {petaD}) is from KCD, in
a scenario where the listener is threatened by a hunter-killer probe.
The command is literally only to "be still".  It is understood as
"keep still" because of the context, but the command itself does not
carry that meaning.

I really, really don't see the necessity of claiming that Type 7
suffixes are optional.  AFAICT, the canon is consistent with TKD's
description of the absence of Type 7 suffixes as (usually) describing
an action which "is not completed and is not continuous".  The alleged
counterexamples are easily explained in a way consistent with that
interpretation.

-- 
De'vID