tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 14 20:44:12 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: -pu'

From: Anthony Appleyard <[email protected]>

>  Please what <is> the correct use of the verb suffix {X-pu'}? TKD says
only
>that it means that the action X is complete. But the pabpo' told me off for
>using -pu' repeatedly for continuous narration of past events (when I was
>describing a scuba diving holiday in the Red Sea), although all the events
>that I referred to were completed.
>  Is it correct to use X-pu' wherever an English speaker would use the
perfect
>tense (or its combined forms such as pluperfect and future-perfect)?
>  My current instincts when narrating past events are to use one -pu' and
then
>plain verbs, and to use another -pu' only where I jump back in time. Is
that
>correct usage?

Time context is NOT established by aspect suffixes.  It is established by
timestamps or subordinate clauses.  Once you have established the time
context, {-pu'} or {-ta'} will then indicate that the action was already
complete at the moment of your current time context.

To describe events that happened on your vacation, you might start like
this:

DaH tlhIHvaD lengwIj vIDel.  wejmaHHu' jIghIQchoH.  *Red Sea*Daq jIleng.
Do' SISbe'taH.  'IH bIQ.  bIQDaq jISupbe'pu'mo' wej tlhuHmeH janwIj vIchu'.

Now I will describe my trip for you.  I began my vacation a month ago.  I
journeyed to the Red Sea.  Fortunately, it was not raining.  The water was
beautiful.  Because I had not jumped into the water, I did not yet turn on
my breathing apparatus.

Notice how the story begins with the time context {DaH} "now," and the
action takes place without any aspect?  That means the describing, {Del},
happens "now."  In the next sentence, however, the time context changes to
{wejmaHHu'} "thirty days ago."  This means the action of the sentence takes
place thirty days ago.  Whatever the sentence describes happened exactly the
way it was described thirty days ago.  The sentence is {jIghIQchoH} "I began
to vacation."  It has no {-pu'} or {-ta'} because the speaker had not
already completed beginning his vacation thirty days ago; as of that time,
he began it, and that's it.

Next, we see three sentences with no "completion" aspect suffixes.  The time
context of {wejmaHHu'} still applies; it has not changed.  It may slowly
change if I don't do so explicitly (if I start describing my first night at
a hotel and waking up the next day, the time context is obviously {cha'maH
HutHu'} even though it is not actually said).

Notice {Do' SISbe'taH} "Fortunately, it was not raining."  Here, the
continuous aspect suffix {-taH} is used.  It is still in its time context of
{wejmaHHu'}, which means that the action was continuous when it was
happening thirty days ago.

Now we come to {bIQDaq jISupbe'pu'mo' wej tlhuHmeH janwIj vIchu'}.  Here we
see a subordinate clause with a completion aspect.  This means that as of
the time context of {wejmaHHu'}, the action {jISupbe'} was already complete.
This does NOT change the time context!  It is still {wejmaHHu'}, and it is
still at the moment that the speaker is on the Red Sea and getting ready to
dive (yes, I've left out the details, but you see the point).

"Because I had not jumped into the water, I did not yet activate my
breathing apparatus."  Notice how the "activate" verb {chu'} has no aspect?
That's because it occurs exactly within the time context.  (It's modified by
{wej} "not yet" of course, but everything still applies.)

Has this helped at all?  "Complete" does not mean complete as of the time of
the TELLING, it means complete as of the time of the CONTEXT.

SuStel
Stardate 98534.8

Back to archive top level