[Tlhingan-hol] Aspect, etc

[SuStel]

On 12/3/2015 4:15 PM, ghunchu'wI' wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 3:51 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, what are "all those examples"?
>
> I was referring to the ones you just posted.
>
> I think you were using them in order to show that your common
> explanation of "habit" or "tendency" is not as ubiquitous as was
> intimated. They lack an aspect suffix, but they don't get translated
> the way TKD says to translate such verbs. They describe actions that
> are variously completed, ongoing, or merely potential. You gave what
> I consider reasonable contextual reasons for not using the otherwise
> appropriate suffixes, and it seems to me that those reasons
> essentially boil down to "the aspect idea isn't important there."

They did not describe verbs that are completed or ongoing.

{juHchajvo' qet loDnI'pu'} does not describe a completed action: the 
running does not stop in this sentence in the story. It does not 
describe a continuous action: we are not describing the action of 
running over time at this point in the story. We are merely describing 
the FACT that running took place, not the shape it took over time.

{ghIq Hechaj bot QIStaq} does not describe a completed action: the 
blocking does not stop in this sentence at this point in the story. It 
does not describe a continuous action: we are not talking about how 
Kri'stak blocks the brothers over time. We are merely describing the 
FACT that blocking took place.

If you really wanted to describe these actions with aspect, you could 
add {-choH} to each verb and not change the meaning all that much. 
Change of state is an aspect, though TKD doesn't make it a type 7 
suffix. As an aspect, it describes how the actions are shaped in time: 
they have a beginning and no specified ending.

{juHchajvo' qetchoH loDnI'pu'} means "the brothers begin to run from 
their home" and {ghIq Hechaj botchoH QIStaq} means "then Kri'stak begins 
to block their path." Neither of these require a type 7 suffix to have 
their aspectual meanings plain, and they are not completed and not 
continuous.

{qaQaH DaneHbe'chugh vaj qul wIchenmoH 'ej matlhutlh} does not describe 
completed actions: we're not talking about drinking that has actually 
happened or necessarily actually will happen. They do not describe 
continuous actions: we're not talking about a long bout of drinking or 
even that from one moment to the next drink will be pouring down our 
throats, and we're not talking about spending the evening making fire. 
We're simply describing an intention to do something.

In all of these cases, type 7 suffixes are not optional, they're WRONG. 
They were not left off because the translator didn't feel like adding 
them or felt like we'd get it anyway.

What I want to see are those examples where the CONCEPT being expressed 
is a perfective or continuous one, but where the perfective or 
continuous suffix is not used, which is what TKD says "usually" does not 
happen. I want to know how usual it is. They surely do exist, whether 
intentional or not—just about every rule in TKD has been broken at one 
point or another. But when a rule "usually" applies you can't just 
ignore it whenever you want, and it helps to study those cases where it 
DOESN'T apply—even if only to argue on mailing lists about the meaning 
of "usually."

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name