[Tlhingan-hol] Aspect, etc

[SuStel]

On 12/3/2015 9:09 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:

> Two of the paq'batlh examples describe what I read as ongoing
> actions. You even pointed that out in the {bot} passage:
>> ...we're not talking about the beginning and the end of the
>> blocking; we're talking about the blocking happening and continuing
>> the story with the blocking still going on. We're just describing
>> the FACT of the blocking.
>
> Though "the blocking [is] still going on", you explain the lack of a
> {-taH} suffix by saying that the story is "just describing the FACT
> of the blocking." I do not see a distinction between that and
> "doesn't need the aspect suffix because that's not what the focus is
> on."

I'm sorry I have been unable to get you to understand the distinction.

The concepts one expresses through language are not equal to reality. 
When one breaks up an idea, as paq'batlh breaks up Kahless and Morath's 
run from their house to Gre'thor, each sentence is only expressing a 
portion of the concept. If you look at the middle of the run and want to 
describe that, a continuous aspect would be most appropriate. But the 
story doesn't look at the middle. It looks at the beginning and it looks 
at the end separately. When looking at the beginning it is not 
continuous--it has an abrupt start. At no point are you actually looking 
at the middle of the run in a sentence, so at no point is the continuous 
aspect appropriate. At no point are you talking about running when the 
running ends, so the perfective suffix is not appropriate.

The blocking of the run is also broken up conceptually. I don't think 
it's mentioned again, but it definitely starts abruptly and continues 
from there. Again, when looking at that as a single piece, which the 
sentence does, it is not continuous; it has a starting point. At no 
point does any sentence talk about the middle of the blocking, nor does 
any sentence talk about the completion of the blocking, so we don't see 
those suffixes.

There IS a difference.

>> Remember, perfective is not just "completed," it's "completed and
>> viewing the action as a whole, without visualizing how it behaves
>> over time."
>
> That might be what "perfective" means in general linguistic usage.
> But the part of the definition after "completed" is not how TKD
> defines {-pu'}.

If Okrand didn't mean "aspect" and "perfective" then he shouldn't have 
said "aspect" and "perfective" many times and used {-pu'} and {-ta'} in 
sentences that have aspect and are perfective.

He was writing a grammar for laymen, not linguists. He wasn't giving an 
exact definition, but he DID use the correct term. His explanation is 
correct, but simplistic.

His definition also doesn't say anything about time contexts, but we've 
traditionally had no problem telling people on this list it means an 
action occurs before the time context.

> I can think of only a single example that makes more
> sense with your interpretation than with the TKD-only one: {X ben
> jIboghpu'} for "I am X years old." Nothing else I know of hints at a
> "viewing the action as a whole" meaning for {-pu'}

Sigh. Examples coming up.

    SutlhtaHvIS chaH DIHIvpu'
    while they were negotiating we attacked them (TKD)

It would not make sense to say that we had already attacked them while 
we were negotiating, or that we completed attacking them while we they 
were negotiating (if we started to attack them they'd stop negotiating 
before we could complete the attack). The attack is viewed as an atomic 
whole. We're not looking at the start of the attack or the middle of the 
attack or the end of the attack. We're not talking about attacks in 
general or any kind of habit we have for attacking. The attack happened 
and was completed.

    yaS qIppu' 'e' vIlegh
    I saw him/her hit the officers (TKD)

I didn't see that he HAD hit the officers or that he has hit officers in 
the past or that he started to hit the officers. There was a hit or 
multiple hits, it or they were enacted and completed, and it or they are 
treated as an atomic whole that I saw.

    ghorgh Haw'pu' yaS
    when did the officer flee? (TKD)

This is not asking when it was true that the officer had already fled or 
when the officer started to flee. This is asking when that atomic unit 
of fleeing took place.

QI'tomerDaq Heghpu' Hoch
everyone died at Khitomer (TKW)

It's not saying that at Khitomer everyone had already died. It's saying 
that at Khitomer everyone died, full stop. They were at Khitomer, then 
dying happened and was completed, all in one concept.

> Generic "pure" perfective is a dot without internal structure? Fine,
> I'll accept that. But I think there is adequate evidence that
> Klingon perfective does not match such an ideal definition.

So do I! But "usually" the definition holds. It's perfective, but in 
paq'batlh (and only in paq'batlh) there are also elements of perfect tense.

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