[Tlhingan-hol] Aspect, etc

[Will Martin]

I’m trying to wrap my head around this.

The issue of time context is messy, since most forms of time stamp involve a duration as well as a time anchor. {wa’Hu’} is not a specific instant, but any of an infinite number of instants between the dawn with today’s date and the dawn with one less than today’s date, or it can refer to any duration within that larger duration, including the entire duration.

Even the instant specified by {DaH} is squishy, since, depending on context, it can mean the duration of the expression of the word (which is still full of an infinite number of instants), to a vague, larger duration moment in time that includes the instants that involve the expression of the word.

It’s messy. It’s functional, but messy.

I have always assumed that the perfective supplements the temporal information given by the explicit or implied time stamp, and that expressions that are timeless are exceptional. They exist, but they are relatively rare. Timelessness with the perfective seems even more exceptional.

It seems like if you want to say that Kruge “DOESN’T SAY WHEN THIS HAPPENS”, then there’s no reason to exclude the future. He could just as easily mean, “Thus you will complete seeing it twenty years from now.” If there’s no time reference, then there’s no time reference. An absence of time reference does not imply past tense, which is what you are suggesting.

My suggestion is simpler. The implied context is present tense, and Kruge is concluding that at the present moment, Valkris has completed seeing the Genesis Project. That completion of the action is significant in the present tense. It is now too late for him to warn her to not see it.

Valkris tells him that he will find it useful to the mission. He concludes from her statement that she knows what it is because she has seen it. She acknowledges that she’s seen it. He comments that this is unfortunate (for her). She accepts his judgement, letting him know that she understands.

She doesn’t say, {jIyajpu’}. Is that to suggest that her understanding is incomplete, or habitual, or general, and not referring to any specific thing that he has said? No. He has said something, and she has understood what he said.

I honestly believe that canon fails to conform to the clear and explicit statement in TKD that the absence of a Type 7 verb suffix implies that there is no continuation or completion of the action. In practice, these suffixes function more like optional helper words in English. You include them when their added meaning are noteworthy, and you omit them when they are not.

It’s noteworthy that the completion of the action of seeing the Genesis Project is complete. It’s not noteworthy that the action of understanding what Kruge just said is complete. It actually IS complete, but that’s not as important as expressing that she understood what he said.

It’s messy. We can talk about how it SHOULD be used, but that won’t dictate how it actually is used.

It would be great to give Okrand a heads up that this discussion exists and that he should weigh in on it. I don’t expect that to happen, but it sure would be good if it could. This is not a new topic, and it’s never been cleanly resolved, though it has been thought through quite thoroughly by several people who can’t really declare how things need to be, while it has not been commented on meaningfully by the guy with absolute authority over how it has to be.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Dec 3, 2015, at 12:08 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 12/3/2015 11:59 AM, Will Martin wrote:
>> That said, I think that your accurate and thorough understanding of the
>> difference between perfective and perfect is probably clearer than the
>> actual use of {-pu’} and {-ta’} in canon or in general usage. The
>> example that you give, {vaj Daleghpu’}, from ST3 does not imply that at
>> the time context of the statement the completion of the action occurs.
>> Kruge is recognizing that in the context of “now”, the action of
>> Valkris’s seeing the Genesis Project has already been completed.
> 
> No. Kruge never gives a time context for his statement. He doesn't say {DaH Daleghpu'} or {wa'Hu' Daleghpu'} or anything like that. He says {vaj Daleghpu'}. By a strictly perfective interpretation, which is what TKD invites us to envision, this means Valkris sees and completes seeing it, AND HE DOESN'T SAY WHEN THIS HAPPENS. Of course, they both understand that the seeing happened in the past, but this is not expressed in the sentence.
> 
> You're adding a "context of 'now'" where one doesn't exist.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151203/ecc61217/attachment.html>