[Tlhingan-hol] Translating the past

[SuStel]

On 4/12/2014 11:51 PM, Robyn Stewart wrote:
>> -pu' and -ta' are not connected to the PAST, they are connected to TENSE,
> in that their perfect usage tells us that an event occurs prior to the time
> context.
>
> Is that a typo? If not I have to disagree that they are connected to tense,
> unless you mean in the loose sense that many completed actions are in the
> past, such that perfective aspect and past tense (provided by context or
> timestamps) will probably occur together.

If -pu' transmits the idea that the verb happens prior to the time 
context, this is tense. This is the definition we all grew up with on 
this list.

If true, -pu' (and -ta') tells us about both tense and aspect. In 
sentences like {vIleghpu'}, the meaning is clearly, "I saw it prior to 
now." That's tense. If I say {wa'leS vIleghpu'}, that's STILL me saying 
I saw it prior to the time context, even though that context, and the 
seeing, is in my future.

In sentences like {qaja'pu'}, we are getting perfective aspect, without 
tense. The telling is being treated as a single unit without internal 
structure. It happens; it's completed. We've also seen examples, which I 
can't think of right now, where the meaning is plainly that an action 
was ongoing and then comes to a stop when it's done. That's also aspect 
(it could be called cessative aspect). Both are encoded into -pu' and -ta'.

Now, if someone wants to propose a truly tenseless definition of -pu' 
and -ta' that doesn't include the idea of "prior to the time context," 
I'm all ears. Either way, Okrand's apparently strange overuse of these 
suffixes is explained: he's using the purely perfective aspect.

>> I can't think of a way that this would make sense with a perfective
> aspect, since as of today tomorrow's killing is not completed as a whole
> unit.
>
> Wait, you do disagree with wa'leS HoHlu'pu'? Would you also reject wa'leS
> tujchoHpu' bIQ? How would you answer the canonical question in a complete
> sentence?

No, I just don't see a way for the a truly perfective meaning to be the 
one to come across. I think this is just a deficiency of my imagination; 
I'm not saying it's ungrammatical. Given more context, I'm sure I could 
make up my mind.

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