[Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes

[ghunchu'wI' 'utlh]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:38 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't mention "perfective" in the above, because I specifically
> wanted to sidestep the whole issue with "perfective" to focus on just
> whether "aspect" really means "aspect".

Aspect is a category with a wide variety of specific meanings. In
Klingon, expressing aspect is restricted to only two of those meanings
(with the option of a separate "intent" or "progress" meaning being
superimposed). So if you ask whether Klingon aspect really means what
a comprehensive linguistic reference lists as "aspect", I'm going to
have to say no. It only means one of three(five) things: action is
marked as finished(accomplished), action is marked as
ongoing(proceeding), or action is not marked as one of the other
two(four).

> If the word "aspect" in TKD really means "aspect", there are logical
> consequences.  A language with aspect markers needs some way to
> indicate when none of the aspect markers apply, or a lot of things
> will just become very ambiguous.

A lot of things are *already* ambiguous. Ambiguity is not a disaster
unless you try to base an argument on its absence when it is not
absent. However, the simplest resolution to the purported problem is
to say that when none of the aspect suffixes are present, the meaning
such a suffix would have is not relevant to the meaning of the
sentence. In a situation where the difference between "marked for
aspect" and "not marked for aspect" is important, it's completely
reasonable to interpret an unmarked verb as expressing the absence of
what the suffix would represent. In a situation where the difference
is not important, I believe it's completely reasonable to interpret a
missing suffix as providing no specific information. I'm afraid any
examples I might give to support my belief are all going to be
dismissed because they necessarily lack an aspect suffix, and thus are
going to be interpreted by those holding a contrary belief as
necessarily lacking a meaning that would be expressed by such a
suffix.

> Unless I'm missing something, the claim that Type 7 suffixes are
> optional is completely independent of the debate over the meaning of
> {-pu'} "perfective".  Indeed, the examples raised so far involve
> {-taH}.  (I think everyone agrees on the meaning of {-taH}
> "continuous", right?)  Whether "perfective" in Klingon means
> "perfective" or "perfect" or even something else, I just don't see how
> you can read TKD to say that Type 7 suffixes are optional.  So where
> is this idea coming from?  Does reading {-pu'} as "perfect" somehow
> require Type 7 suffixes to be optional (i.e., for their absence not to
> indicate a lack of both continuity and completion)?
>
> 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"?

The lack of a Type 7 suffix on a verb does usually indicate that the
action is not completed and is not continuous. That is explicit in TKD
and is supported by examples throughout the canon. The leap from there
to "an action which is either completed or continuous requires a Type
7 suffix on the verb" is not so clear, and I find what I consider to
be contrary examples without significant effort.

*blink* *blink*

Something just clicked. I think I've finally figured out exactly what
it is that has me arguing so strongly here. Let's see if I can explain
it.

The big sticking point for me was David's insistence that whenever a
sentence talks about something that contains a perfective meaning it
is wrong to leave off the {-pu'} (or {-ta'}) suffix. This was
apparently intended merely to say that the absence of the suffix is as
meaningful as its presence, a position that I myself don't embrace but
which I am not strongly opposed to. However, since David used an
interpretation of perfective which is at odds with how TKD explains
its meaning, his argument seemed absolutely incorrect. I didn't
recognize until now that the core of my disagreement is with that
incidental part of the argument and not with its essence. Since he
started this round of debate by focusing on a sentence which arguably
includes the "all at once" idea but does not carry the "completed"
idea that we are told Klingon perfective means, I came to a different
conclusion about whether the suffix is necessary. Because I didn't
recognize that we had a different premise, I improperly focused on the
logic of the argument instead.

I'm willing to take the word "usually" as meaning "more often than
not". I'm not sure that "not X usually implies not Y" can legitimately
be interpreted as a rule saying "if it says Y you must use X", but I
agree that it's a good idea. If I do want to say Y I'm going to use X
to express it unless I have a good reason not to (e.g. the second verb
of a SAO). What I still don't agree with is a mandatory "if Y you must
use X." If the context of the sentence implies Y but I don't think it
matters whether or not Y is true, I'm usually (!) not going to use X.
On the other hand, if someone else thinks Y matters, I'm not going to
tell them to leave off the X.

Incidentally, I definitely do not go along with "if W you must use X",
because I do not think W (strict linguistic definition of perfective)
and X (Klingon perfective) are the same thing.

-- ghunchu'wI'