[Tlhingan-hol] KLBC : Sentences as objects

[lojmIt tI'wI' nuv]

Three options:

1. Follow the rule and don't indicate perfective. Let context and ambiguity reign. 

2. Ignore the rule like most people do and pretend that you just forgot it. 

3. Follow everything with {rIn} and smile at the confused look on the face of the person to whom you are speaking. 

Sent from my iPad
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv

> On Dec 18, 2015, at 3:02 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> qun HoD:
>>>> {luyu'nIS 'e' lulIj} <they forgot that they needed to question him>
> 
> ghunchu'wI':
>>> Depending on the exact situation being described, the first one
>>> *might* be improved with the suffix {-pu'} on the first verb.
> 
> SuStel:
>> In most examples I can think of, {-pu'} would not be desired. You're
>> describing a need for interrogation, not a need for completed interrogation.
>> ghunchu'wI' is probably thinking of "completed needing," but I don't see
>> that in the English. There was no interrogation, so there was no completion.
>> The fact that it's in the past would be indicated by other context.
> 
> Aspect with {'e'} is weird. In TKD 6.2.5, it says that "In complex
> sentences of this type, the second verb never takes an aspect suffix
> (section 4.2.7)."
> 
> It's never been explained why not. Or has it? (I think the
> out-of-universe reason may have been a backfit for an error of some
> kind?)
> 
> But clearly, sticking an aspect marker on the first verb means
> something different than sticking it on the second verb. How would one
> indicate, for example, that the act of forgetting in the above is
> continuous, or completed?
> 
> -- 
> De'vID
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol