[Tlhingan-hol] Interactions between verb suffixes

[De'vID]

De'vID:
>> {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".

QeS:
> 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.

There isn't a one-to-one mapping between Klingon and English
sentences. This is a consequence of the fact that Klingon has aspect
but not tense, and English is the other way around.

I agree that "they needed to interrogate him" is one possible
translation of that sentence, but for a different reason than your
explanation.

The suffix {-pu'} means exactly that the action of the interrogation
is a completed action. It might sound contradictory to say that this
doesn't necessarily mean that it has actually happened (a completed
action can take place in the future), but that's the difference
between tense and aspect.

QeS:
> It may be one reason why they no longer
> need to interrogate him, of course, but there may be a number of other
> reasons.

{luyu'nISpu'} indicates that: (1) they interrogate him (neutral as to
time: this could mean they interrogated him, they are interrogating
him, or they will interrogate him); (2) they have a need to do so; (3)
the action of interrogating him is completed (was completed, is being
completed, will be completed).

Thus, depending on whether we are discussing a past event or a
hypothetical one, the sentence can have either of those meanings. (We
don't know much about stress in Klingon. Perhaps one can differentiate
between those meanings by stressing the {-nIS} or the {-pu'}.)

I don't agree that the sentence indicates that they have completed the
needing to interrogate him, because if that were true, the meaning of
the sentence would be that they don't need to interrogate him. It also
doesn't follow from the grammar given in TKD: {-nIS} indicates the
subject needs to carry out the action ({yu'}), and {-pu'} indicates
perfective aspect (that an action is completed).

There's no reason to believe that {-nIS} somehow falls into the
"scope" of {-pu'}: the need to do an action is not the action itself,
nor even a part of it. (If anything, one can think of {-pu'} as
falling into the "scope" of {-nIS}: the sentence expresses a need for
the action to be completed. But I think this talk of "scope" at all is
misleading.)

QeS:
> 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)

Again, according to the grammar as described, this means that the
speaker has a need to get the information, and has gotten or will have
gotten the information. "I needed to get the information" is one
possible translation of the Klingon sentence, but it's not the only
one. It's probably the one that makes the most sense, absent other
context, though.

QeS:
> 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;

I don't understand where these ideas about the scope of suffixes and
their ordering is coming from.

The description of some of the suffix types clearly say that they
apply to "the action". Some of the suffixes also affect "the action",
and to the degree that they do, they interact with each other. But
this has nothing to do with {-qang} being in the "scope" of {-pu'}.

{-qang} indicates willingness on his part ("he" is the "subject", even
though apparently in the object position, because of {-lu'}). {-pu'}
indicates that the action of {HeghmoH} "causing to die" is completed
(was/will be completed).

The sentence means that "it" (some indefinite thing) makes him die
(has made him die, will make him die), and that he does so (has done
so, will do so) willingly. Taken together, "it made him willing to
die" is a sensible translation.

QeS:
> it seems clear that {loD HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} doesn't imply {Heghpu' loD}.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "imply" here. {loD
HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} contains the idea of {Heghpu' loD}, as well as, say
{Heghqang loD}. I think you are confusing tense and aspect: just
because an action is a completed one, it doesn't mean it has actually
happened or already happened. {loD HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} doesn't imply
that the man has died, but it does "imply" {Heghpu' loD}.

One can say, e.g., {Heghpu'chugh loD...} or {Heghpu'DI' loD}, neither
of which imply the man has actually died.

Also, why do you think "it made him/her willing to die" means that the
person described is still alive?

QeS:
> For that reason, I also don't agree that {luyu'nISpu'} implies {luyu'pu'}.

Again, I just don't understand what you mean. {luyu'nISpu'} expresses
a need for the subject ("they") to carry out the action described by
{luyu'pu'}. I think that, in this sense, it does imply it.

De'vID:
>> 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"?

QeS:
> 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.

TKD says "neutral as to time", and I believe it actually means
"neutral as to time" (i.e., it is talking very clearly about tense and
not aspect when it does so).

The exactly expression "neutral as to time" is used three times in TKD.

p. 62: <{qaHoH bIjatlhHa'chugh} "If you say the wrong thing, I will kill you."
Note that although the English translation uses the word "will", there
is no marker for future in Klingon. The unsuffixed verb {HoH} "kill"
is neutral as to time: since the person being addressed is being given
a chance to speak, that person must still be alive. Thus, the killing
must take place in the future.>

p.66: <{yaS qIppu' 'e' vIlegh} "I saw him/her hit the officers."
[...] Note that the verb in the second sentence, {vIlegh} "I see it",
is neutral as to time. The past tense of the translation ("I saw...")
comes from the verb in the first sentence, {qIppu'} "he/she hit
him/her" ({-pu'} "perfective"). In complex sentences of this type, the
second verb never takes an aspect suffix (section 4.2.7).>

p.67: <{qama'pu' vIjonta' vIneH} "I wanted to capture prisoners."

In this final example, the first part is {qama'pu' vIjonta'} "I
captured prisoners" ({qama'pu'} "prisoners", {vIjonta'} "I captured
them"). 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. The past tense of the
translation ("I wanted...") comes from the aspect marker on the first
verb.>

In each of the above cases, Okrand's use of "neutral as to time"
wasn't talking about the aspect marker on the Klingon sentence, but
the use of a particular tense in translating the sentence into
English.

QeS:
> But that's
> another can of worms that I fervently want to not open again at the moment.)

Heh. You reminded me of the sentence that the rule (about there being
no aspect marker on the second verb) was invented for, though:
{qama'pu' vIjonta' vIneH}. I think half of all Klingon grammar comes
from that sentence. :-)

-- 
De'vID