[Tlhingan-hol] Translating the past

[Bellerophon, modeler]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:41 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> Perhaps I'm wrong here, but when Kruge finds out that Valkris has seen
> the Genesis tape, and he says {vaj Daleghpu'} "then you have seen it," I
> don't get the sense that he means "you saw it all the way through" or
> "you finished seeing it." He means "you looked at it, you saw what it
> contains."
>
> Thinking about it, perhaps this IS a good example of perfective aspect:
> she saw it, and he's treating the act of seeing as a single, completed,
> whole. Not completed as in she saw the whole thing, but completed as in
> she looked at it and then stopped looking at it.


Not just that. Having seen it, she couldn't unsee it. Although the
perfective aspect doesn't imply irreversibility, the completion of an
irreversible action is definitely a suitable occasion for perfective aspect.

> > A verb with a time stamp and without a Type 7 suffix also tells you that
> > > the verb is not completed and is not continuous.
> > >
> > > {wa'Hu' yaS qIp puq} CANNOT mean "yesterday the child hit the officer"
> as
> > > a single act. That would be perfective, completed, a simple whole, and
> > > would require -pu' or -ta'. It CAN mean "yesterday the child hit the
> > > officer [on and off]."
> > >
> >
> > Are you asserting that the lack of an aspect marker implies the aspect of
> > ongoing, discontinuous action? Then must we say {meQtaH qach} as opposed
> to
> > {meQ qach}, to make sure the listener understands that the house is not
> > burning intermittently?
>
> No to the first question, and a qualified yes to the second. TKD says at
> the beginning of the section on Type 7 verb suffixes—and I'm
> paraphrasing here, because my TKD isn't with me—that verbs without a
> Type 7 suffix are not continuous and are not completed.


Close to an exact quote. It says, "The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually
means that the action is not completed and is not continuous (that is, it
is not one of the things indicated by the Type 7 suffixes)." Meaning, I
suppose, either that the action is neither ongoing nor complete in the
sentence, or that the action isn't of the sort that requires the speaker to
denote aspect. The word "usually" gives an out, however. Klingon allows the
speaker to omit much of what context makes clear, which could include
aspect.


> So if we say {meQ qach}, it CANNOT mean "the building is burning in an
> ongoing manner," and it CANNOT mean "the building burned and completed
> burning." It might mean "the building burns" as a statement of its
> predilection to catch fire (e.g., "buildings burn; they do, in fact,
> burn").


As in, "I just lit a rocket. Rockets explode." But predilection might
require {-laH}: {meQlaH qach}. Or not, if context makes it clear to the
listener. Or one might say {meQ 'op qach}.

Here is another can of worms. Aspect includes not only completion and
continuation of action, but also its inception and resumption, which are
denoted by Type 3 verb suffixes. Are these compatible with Type 7 suffixes?
For instance, what would ?{bIDachtaHvIS, Duj yImuItlhchoHpu'} mean? "While
you were away, I started to construct a ship," or, "While you were away, I
started and finished constructing a ship." Or is it just bad Klingon?

~'eD
-- 
My modeling blog:          http://bellerophon-modeler.blogspot.com/
My other modeling blog:  http://bellerophon.blog.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20140414/f2704669/attachment.html>