[Tlhingan-hol] Aspect, etc

[Alan Anderson]

On 12/3/2015 2:12 PM, Will Martin wrote:
> 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.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 2:37 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> I think we can take TKD at face value in this for most cases, and I can
> demonstrate it over and over; you have to invent new rules "like optional
> helper words" to find a way to justify grammar that explicitly contradicts
> it. Which is simpler?

If we go with the "if it's a completed action, you have to put {-pu'}
on it" idea, we have to explain away all those examples in the
paq'batlh that would otherwise be unremarkable. *I* think it's a whole
lot simpler to treat the perfective suffixes with the "use them if the
idea of completion is important" idea. That also has the advantage of
not making an explicit distinction between the "perfective" and
"perfect" ideas, which Klingon in actual use clearly blurs together.

We *KNOW* that TKD contains pronouncements that are shown by later
examples to be incomplete or too restrictive. The bit about "no aspect
suffix usually means the action is not complete and not continuous"
seems to be similar in character to the bit about "{-qu'} is the only
suffix that can go on verbs used in the sense of an adjective". It
even has a built-in weakness with the word "usually". Going from "no X
usually indicates no Y" to "Y means X is required" sounds to me a
little like telling people not to split infinitives in English.

-- ghunchu'wI'