tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 01 16:00:39 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Quality and Aspect Was: Re: KLBC Poetry
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Quality and Aspect Was: Re: KLBC Poetry
- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 16:29:36 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Qov <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: Quality and Aspect Was: Re: KLBC Poetry
>tuj - It is hot/it was hot/it will be hot
>
>tujpu' - it had been hot/it has been hot/it will have been hot
>(doesn't say whether or not the hotness continues past the point under
>consideration)
You are ignoring the fact that {-pu'} and {-ta'} are defined as "This suffix
indicates that an action is completed." (TKD p. 41) {tujpu'} is NOT an
action (and Klingon DOES distinguish between action verbs and quality verbs,
as evidenced by KGT p. 117), and if it's still hot, the being hot is not
complete. As far as I can tell, the "completion" part of the suffixes is
essential and central to their meaning.
>tujchoH - It was getting hot/It is getting hot/it will be getting hot
>
>tujchoHpu' - It got hot/It's hot now/it will get hot
>(We don't say "it's got hot" but "It's hot now" implies the same thing as
>{tujchoHpu'}: it has presently completed the process of changing to being
hot.
Ah, and now you have used the idea of completion. Of course, {tujchoH} IS
an action, not a quality.
Actually, Marc Okrand's terms for this distinction on KGT p. 117 is "verb
describing a state of being" and "verb describing an activity."
>We have plenty of canon with non-action verbs in -pu'. Being can be
>perfective as much as actions can.
No, we don't. I've looked. I can find no "state of being" verbs with
{-pu'} or {-ta'}. (My search through KGT was not exhaustive, but I've
searched everything else. I have yet to type the entire text of KGT into a
file . . .)
If you mean verbs like {jIHpu'}, I say they aren't verbs at all, but
leftovers which act like verbs in some ways. Is {jIH} a state of being or
an activity? It could be either. {tlhIngan jIH} looks to me like a state
of being, but {naDev jIHtaH} seems like much like an activity to me.
>}<tujpu'> = it was hot before, but no implication of its present state.
This
>}is just past tense. <-pu'> never gives this impression.
>
>Right. This is NOT correct.
>
>}<tujpu'> = it was hot and now is not hot. This seems likely, if we
re-think
>}<tuj> into an active verb "take the form of a hot thing".
>
>Saying 'take the form of a hot thing' confuses you into thinking 'take ON
>the form of a hot thing' and you're back to {tujchoH}.
{tuj} is the very verb Okrand uses to demonstrate what to do with an
imperative state of being verb. It is definitely not an activity verb.
>It may still be hot. It might not be hot yet. What's important is that
the
>hotness had already occured.
What's important is that the hotness IS COMPLETE.
>qatlh bIDach? - Why were you absent?
>jIroppu' - I've been sick.
>DaH bIpIv'a'? - Are you better now?
wa'Hu' qatlh bIDach? - Why were you absent yesterday?
jIrop. - I was sick.
DaH bIpIv'a'? - Are you better now?
This is the purpose of timestamps: to give a time context. That is not the
role of aspect. Any verb without a Type 7 suffix is not complete and is not
continuous, regardless of time context.
>It doesn't imply you are well now, except in that if you were still sick
you
>might simply say {jIrop}.
No, it implies that your state of being sick is complete, which means,
essentially, that you are well now (or dead).
I'm not convinced that a perfective suffix cannot go on a state of being
verb, since {-choH} and {-qa'} are also described in terms of actions but
can go on states, but the lack of canon support suggests that such
constructions would be unusual. But the Klingon perfective suffix also
requires completion.
SuStel
Stardate 98088.7