[Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes

[David Trimboli]

On 6/26/2012 3:20 AM, Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh wrote:
>
>
> jIjatlhpu':
>> 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.
>
> mujang SuStel, jatlh:
>> This is not correct. Another appropriate, but not so colloquial,
>> translation of the phrase {ghoS tlhIngan SuvwI'} is "a Klingon warrior
>> comes."
>
> In the English, "a Klingon warrior comes" is no better: it verges on weird
> for me in context. "The howl proclaims that a Klingon warrior comes." Nope,
> I'd correct that to "is coming" every time. Unless there's some temporal
> adjunct to allow it to take the habitual/imperfective sense (e.g. "a Klingon
> warrior comes every night"), the plain aspect here is very strange for me
> in either English or Klingon.

I did say that it was not a colloquial way to say it in English. But 
here we're arguing about whether the English translation has continuous 
aspect, not whether the Klingon does. You can't get rid of the 
aspect/tense combinations of English; you can in Klingon. The two are 
never identical.

> Let me try another argument.
>
> In the previous sentence from S31, {Heghpu'bogh latlhpu' ghuHmoH bey}, we
> have two aspects: the imperfective/habitual {ghuHmoH} and the perfective
> {Heghpu'bogh}. The general or unbounded nature of the whole situation is
> given by {ghuHmoH},

The non-continuous and non-completed nature of the sentence is given by 
{ghuHmoH}, but the general or unbounded nature (*whenever* such a shout 
occurs) is given only by the context in which the sentence appears.

> but the use of the perfective in the subordinate clause
> denotes something that was completed by the time of the situation - i.e.
> the action denoted by the main verb, {ghuHmoH}.

De'vID's arguments have convinced me that {-pu'} and {-ta'} are not just 
strictly perfective aspect: they are several sorts of "completed" 
aspect. "Completed by the time of the situation" is one of those 
meanings; perfective is another. If this is correct, a Klingon would 
read these suffixes as meaning "completed or complete, without reference 
to a time." Someone who has died before the time context of the sentence 
is completed; so is someone who starts to die and finishes dying at that 
time context. You can't necessarily figure out which shade of completed 
is meant without the context of the rest of the sentence. {Heghpu'bogh} 
does not only mean "who died prior to the time context"; it also means 
"who up and died."

In the example sentence, {Heghpu'bogh latlhpu' ghuHmoH bey}, context 
does not distinguish one kind of completedness from another, so it's not 
important. The others died, obviously before a whenever-shout, but we're 
not distinguishing between "died prior to" and "up and died," because 
it's not an important distinction here. {-pu'} "completed" is enough. 
The dying is over with; that's all we need.

> In the same way, in the sentence {ghoS tlhIngan SuvwI' maq}, the general or
> unbounded nature of the whole situation is given by {maq}, but from the
> perspective of the whole situation, surely the act of the dead Klingon's
> spirit {ghoS}ing the other dead is in continuous and incomplete progress,
> and thus requires {-taH}? Or am I still misunderstanding it?

This is where you're considering the {ghoS}ing of the dead Klingon to be 
an inherently aspected action. Aspect is only what we express; it's not 
inherent in objective reality.

In this context, *all* of the following statements are true, but they 
all say something a little different:

ghoS tlhIngan SuvwI'
ghoSlI' tlhIngan SuvwI'
ghoStaH tlhIngan SuvwI'

The first says a Klingon warrior is traveling a path. Maybe he meanders 
a bit, maybe he gets lost, maybe he takes breaks from time to time, or 
maybe he marches steadily on. This sentence merely states that travel on 
a path is occurring.

The second sentence says a Klingon warrior is traveling a path, but also 
that he is making continuous progress toward his goal. As we focus on 
our Klingon, we see that he is already moving along his path, and that 
he is making progress toward reaching his destination. As we turn our 
focus elsewhere, the Klingon is still marching.

The third sentence says that as we focus on our Klingon warrior, we see 
that he is already moving along a path. When we turn our attention 
elsewhere, we know that he is still moving along that path.

> taH:
>> By choosing another translation, I have tried to excise the in-progress
>> sense exhibited by the English translation which doesn't appear in the
>> Klingon. It's not telling you that a Klingon warrior is making progress
>> toward arriving, or continuously in motion; it's saying that a Klingon
>> warrior happens to be taking the path that leads to the other dead. It
>> is stating the warrior's position or condition,
>
> A condition that is, in the context of the general situation (i.e. the
> proclamation, or {maq}), continuous and non-completed, qar'a'?
>
>> and this is not an inherently continuous idea.
>
> I still don't understand how that's the case. You can only say it's not
> an inherently continuous idea by assuming the truth of your premise. Is
> there another way you can explain it?

I hope that I have achieved a good explanation. I haven't had a lot of 
luck expressing myself on this topic.

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