[Tlhingan-hol] Interactions between verb suffixes

[Rohan Fenwick]

jatlhpu' 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".

vIjangpu' jIH, jIjatlh:
> 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.

mujang je De'vID, jatlh:
> 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 admit I'm somewhat lost as to why you raise the issue of aspect here. My problem with the interpretation would be the same if we were talking about Type 6 suffixes rather than Type 7s.

taH:
> 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.

No, it could well mean that the action of *needing to interrogate* is a completed action. That's my point, and doesn't have anything to do with what the aspect is. Again, to cast the example with a Type 6 suffix rather than a Type 7, {luyu'nISbej} can mean that the action of *needing to interrogate* is certain. It doesn't necessarily imply that the action of interrogation per se is certain, and that's what I'm trying to argue for here.

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

De'vID:
> {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).

And what is the status of completion of the need to do so? How does {-pu'} affect, or not affect, {-nIS}? That's the part that, with respect, I think you're missing from my question.

taH:
> 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.

Yes, but there are easily-imaginable contexts in which such a meaning would be called for.

taH:
> 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).

That begs the question. How narrowly do we construe "action" here? Does it refer only to the verb root? Or does it refer to the verb plus some suffixes? That was and continues to be my question. The given meaning of the sentence {HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} "it causes him to be willing to die" shows that for the purposes of {-moH}, the action is {Heghqang}, not {Hegh}. Similarly for {SuvqangmoHbej} and {SuvqangmoHchu'} from the paq'batlh.

(poD vay')

jIH:
> 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;

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

By "scope", all I'm talking about is the limits (or absence of limits) of the ability of one suffix to affect meaning of either the verb root, other suffixes, or some combination of the two.

taH:
> 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'}).

Taking away {-lu'}, then, what do you make of {HeghqangmoHpu'}? We know for a fact that in such constructions, it's not necessarily the surface subject - the agent of causation - that exhibits the willingness, even though that's what your reading of TKD would dictate. We have {SuvqangmoHbej} and {SuvqangmoHchu'} from the paq'batlh (paq'raD 7.18, 20) where the meaning has the surface *object* who's exhibiting the willingness - this indicates that {Suvqang} is acting more derivationally than inflectionally.

(poD vay')

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

De'vID:
> I don't quite understand what you mean by "imply" here.

In the sense of logical implication (as in, X presupposes Y). Here I don't believe {loD HeghqangmoHlu'pu'} logically implies, or entails, {Heghpu' loD}. It's a possible consequence, but not a necessary one.

taH:
> {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}.

No, it only implies {Heghqangpu' loD}. A willingness to engage in an act does not imply that the act will take place, regardless of what the aspect is.

taH:
> 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?

I don't remember saying anything of the kind. All I'm saying is that the person described is not necessarily dead and will not necessarily become so. (Natural mortality notwithstanding, of course, which means that {Heghpu' loD} will universally be true regardless of context!)

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

De'vID:
> 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.

This also begs the question. The need does not imply the action: that is to say, I don't think it's a tautology to say {luyu'nISmo' luyu'} "they interrogate him because they need to interrogate him".

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"?

jIH:
> 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.

De'vID:
> 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).

Why single it out in this instance, then? When *all* verbs are neutral as to time, a fact which is clearly discussed in TKD already (p. 40), surely it's superfluous to make mention of it so specifically here, especially in phrasing such as this: "...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." (TKD p.67). Surely *both* verbs are neutral as to time, and it's only aspect that is characteristic of the first sentence? I want also to note, though, that I'm not using "time" here in the sense of 
"tense". And I
 don't believe Marc necessarily was, either. I think here his use of 
"time" in the phrase "neutral as to time" refers to the temporal 
structure of the event itself, which (as you note) is aspect, not tense. So from that point of view, I'm not disagreeing with you, necessarily.

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

De'vID:
> 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. :-)

In one or another of its meanings! :P

QeS 'utlh
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20151220/2cff4738/attachment.html>