[Tlhingan-hol] Aspect, etc

[De'vID]

ghunchu'wI':
> 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 have a very similar understanding of aspect in Klingon to SuStel,
and the paq'batlh strikes me as unremarkable. Maybe I have to read it
a lot more closely, but I don't think what he says contradicts what's
in the book.

ghunchu'wI':
> *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.

Treating {-taH} as optional has the disadvantage of conflating
concepts which are different, as I explained in another message. The
same is true for {-pu'}, but the examples aren't as clear as with
{-taH}.

I don't think there's any justification for treating {-pu'} as
optional but not {-taH}, though.

ghunchu'wI':
> Two of the paq'batlh examples describe what I read as ongoing actions.
> You [SuStel] 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."

To go back to the TKD example, {jun} means to take one single evasive
action. {juntaH} means to take evasive action, that is, to continually
evade something.

The difference between {bot} and {bottaH} is exactly analogous: {ghIq
Hechaj bot QIStaq} means the volcano blocks their path. {ghIq Hechaj
bottaH QIStaq} would mean that the volcano keeps getting in their way.
If I read that sentence, I'm unlikely to interpret it as the volcano
moving around to block them, since volcanos normally don't move. I'd
be more inclined to interpret it as the volcano being so massive that,
no matter where they went, it was in their way. But that's not what it
says. It says {bot}, so the volcano blocks them, but there's no
implication that it's getting in their way at every turn.

{bot} and {bottaH} express slightly different concepts. It's true that
if something {bottaH}s you, it also {bot}s you. Similarly, if you are
moving around to dodge something ({juntaH}), it would also be accurate
to describe you as trying to avoid or evade it ({jun}). If something
gnaws ({choptaH}), it also bites ({chop}). But that doesn't mean that
{-taH} is optional, or that its presence is a matter of emphasis or
focus.

SuStel:
>> Remember, perfective is not just "completed," it's "completed and viewing
>> the action as a whole, without visualizing how it behaves over time."

ghunchu'wI':
> That might be what "perfective" means in general linguistic usage. But
> the part of the definition after "completed" is not how TKD defines
> {-pu'}.

I don't think the part SuStel added is necessary, but I also don't
think it contradicts TKD, either.

-- 
De'vID