[Tlhingan-hol] Interactions between verb suffixes

[De'vID]

On 17 December 2015 at 19:09, Bellerophon, modeler
<bellerophon.modeler at gmail.com> wrote:
> regarding qunnoQ's sentence <luyu'nIS 'e' lulIj> in the thread KLBC:
> Sentences as objects

Context for anyone not following that thread: this was intended to
mean "they forgot that they needed to question him".

> ghunchu'wI' and SuStel: You have a difference in interpretation involving
> multiple verb suffixes. Alan, that adding -pu' to yu'nIS completes the act
> of needing to interrogate, and David, that since the interrogation did not
> happen, there is no completion.

I didn't see any explanation from ghuchu'wI' (Alan) that that was his
interpretation. He wrote: "Depending on the exact situation being
described, the first one *might* be improved with the suffix {-pu'} on
the first verb."

That's true. It depends on the exact situation being described.

> This reminds me of {jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH} "I need to wash my hair." Not "I
> cause my hair to need to be clean." Clearly the suffixes don't act on what
> precedes thus far; i.e., it's not formed by nesting like
> [[[[[[[[[[verb]vs1]vs2]vs3]...]vs9]. Instead each of the suffixes acts on
> the verb. Obviously the suffixes interact since they're modifying the same
> verb, but the interaction must be without respect to precedence, since
> precedence is established by grammar, not semantics. No matter how badly you
> might want {-nIS} to modify {Say'moH}, it's a Type 2 prefix, so you can't
> put it after a Type 4. (Though I wonder if "street Klingon" dialects
> frequently turn verb+vs4 into a verb stem, as in the slang {qogh
> vItuQmoHHa'}.)
>
> My question, then, is what are some good references (canon examples, HolQeD
> discussions, etc.) to study in order to better understand how meaning is
> constructed from the interactions of multiple verb suffixes?

Is anything needed here which isn't in TKD?

4.2.2: Suffixes of this type express how much choice the subject has
about the action described or how predisposed the subject is to doing
it. {-nIS} need.

4.2.4: {-moH} cause. Adding this suffix to a verb indicates that the
subject is causing a change of condition or causing a new condition to
come into existence.

4.2.7: {-pu'} perfective. This suffix indicates that an action is
completed. It is often translated by the English present perfect (have
done something).

{vISay'nISmoH} means that I cause something to be clean, and I need
that to be done. That means "I need to clean something", not "I cause
something to need to be clean", since the subject of the verb is doing
the needing.

*{vISay'moHnIS} would mean exactly the same thing as {vISay'nISmoH},
except the suffix order is wrong. Only rovers modify the suffix before
them. Effectively, {-nIS} is modifying {Say'moH}, because of what
those suffixes mean, not because of their order.

{wa'Hu' jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH} "yesterday I needed to wash my hair"
(doesn't say I actually washed it)
{wa'leS jIbwIj vISay'nISmoH} "tomorrow I will need to wash my hair"
(doesn't mean I'll actually do it)

{wa'Hu' jIbwIj vISay'nISmoHpu'} "yesterday I washed (have washed) my
hair, which I needed to wash"
{wa'leS jIbwIj vISay'nISmoHpu'} "tomorrow I will wash (will have
washed) my hair, which I will need to wash"

Klingon is a language that marks volition and aspect, and doesn't have
tense. Maybe this is slightly confusing, because completed things
often happen in the past, and necessary things often happen in the
future. But those associations are semantic, not grammatical.

{luyu'nISpu'} means that they need(ed) to interrogate him, and they
have completed their interrogation of him. That is, "they have carried
out their necessary interrogation of him".

{luyu'nIS 'e' lulIj} "they forgot/forget/will forget that they
needed/need/will need to interrogate him"
{luyu'nISpu' 'e' lulIj} "they forgot/forget/will forget that they have
carried out their necessary interrogation of him"

The thing that's slightly baffling is the apparent impossibility of
sticking a type 7 suffix on the second verb (see TKD 6.2.5). How does
one say "they have forgotten (have completed the act of forgetting)
that they needed/need/will need to interrogate him"?

I wouldn't be surprised, though, if someone now points out some canon
sentences which show that suffixes interact differently than what (I
think) TKD describes.

-- 
De'vID