[Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes

[Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh]

ghItlhpu' De'vID, jatlh:
> Let's separate the two issues. Are you really saying that the lack of
> Type 7 suffixes on a verb doesn't usually indicate that the action "is
> not completed and is not continuous"?

I'm not sure whether my emails in this thread are getting through to all
participants, as I've made mention of a few things that I thought were on
point but have been roundly ignored. So in case it wasn't seen beforehand:
"Optional" and "usual" are NOT mutually exclusive.

Number marking on Klingon nouns, for instance, is optional. It's entirely
optional (with the exception of the inherently plural nouns, which are
grammatically singular anyway). We're told so explicitly in TKD. You can
speak good grammatical Klingon for the rest of your life without using any
of the suffixes {-pu'}, {-Du'} or {-mey}. But in Klingon text, what we see
is that lack of number marking on a noun is *usually* because the noun has
a singular referent.

Note the use of the word "usually" there.

In the same way, the lack of the aspect marking on a verb *usually* means
that that verb is not continuous and is not completed. That, we have from
TKD. But we have canon counterexamples where a certain aspectual meaning
is clearly intended but there is no aspect suffix. Last week I cited an
example from S31 where {-lI'} or {-taH} is expected but is nowhere to be
found:

Heghpu'bogh latlhpu' ghuHmoH bey. ghoS tlhIngan SuvwI' maq.
...and also serves to warn the
other dead that a Klingon warrior is coming

{ghoS} here needs {-lI'} or {-taH}. Period. In context there is no other
possible option if a null type 7 necessarily implies non-continuous and
non-perfective aspect.

Given that, I think a verb without type 7 marking is as the term implies:
*unmarked* for aspect. That the unmarked aspect most usually refers to non-
continuous and non-completed events is due to the fact that the suffixes
that mark events overtly as continuous or completed are *usually* used when
they're appropriate.


Sorry to seem curmudgeonly about this, but I think these are important
counterpoints and the argument seems to be going on without them having
been addressed.

QeS 'utlh