[Tlhingan-hol] Interactions between verb suffixes

[Rohan Fenwick]

ghItlhpu' De'vID, jatlh:
> {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".

No, I don't think you can fairly make that conclusion. My only natural interpretation would be "they needed to interrogate him". They have completed the *needing* to interrogate him, but that doesn't mean that the interrogation itself was completed. It may be one reason why they no longer need to interrogate him, of course, but there may be a number of other reasons. We don't have much canon at all of Type 2 in conjunction with other verb suffixes, but we do have {De' vItlhapnISpu'} "I needed to get the information" (TKD p.29) and the following example from TKD that I think is pretty instructive about how the suffixes interact:

HeghqangmoHlu'pu'
"it [sic] made him/her willing to die" (TKD p.45)

Here the scope of {-pu'} is everything preceding it, verbs and suffixes together - the causing to be willing to die. That's the part that is completed here, judging from the gloss; it seems clear that {loD HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} doesn't imply {Heghpu' loD}. For that reason, I also don't agree that {luyu'nISpu'} implies {luyu'pu'}.

taH:
> 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"?

TKD p.67 also notes that main verbs in complement constructions are simply neutral as to aspect. (Strictly, it says that they're neutral as to "time", which is one of those areas where I do think that, with all respect to Okrand, his conceptualisation of aspect in TKD is not always quite as clear-cut as some have asserted. I quote: "Note once again that the aspect marker (in this case, {-ta'} <accomplished>) goes with the first verb only; the second verb, {vIneH} <I want it,> is neutral as to time." But that's another can of worms that I fervently want to not open again at the moment.) So for "they have forgotten that they need(ed) to interrogate him" as {luyu'nISpu' 'e' lulIj}, and if it were desperately important to talk about the specific aspect of the forgetting, it'd have to be expressed elsewise, I think.

QeS 'utlh
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151218/2faaf24e/attachment.html>