tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 14 10:46:17 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tujpu'
ja' SuStel:
>/tujpu'/ means that the state of being hot is, was, or will be complete.
Agreed. That's the definition of {-pu'}.
>"Complete" does indeed imply that the state no longer is.
However, I don't agree with this implication. Are you're making a
distinction between active and stative verbs? {chenpu'} certainly doesn't
imply to me that the thing which takes form no longer exists, and {ba'pu'}
says nothing to me about whether or not one is still sitting. I see no
reason to treat {tuj} any differently from {chen} when using aspect.
> If I say /tujpu'
>bIQ/, I'm not denying the possibility that /tujqa' bIQ/, but definitely at
>some point /tujbe' bIQ/.
maQochbej.
>If /tujpu'/ didn't mean that after something was /tuj/ it was /tujbe'/, then
>/-pu'/ would be referring to tense, not aspect. /tujpu'/ doesn't mean "at
>some point before the current time context something was hot and I'm not
>saying whether it is hot at the current time context," it means, "at some
>point before the current time context something was hot and then ceased to
>be hot, but I'm not saying whether it's hot at the current time context."
I don't see anything persuasive in your argument. It looks like you're
saying that {-pu'} implies {-be'choHpu'}. The meaning which you insist is
the correct interpretation definitely expands on the word "complete" as I
understand it, and I just don't see why you are convinced that the
expansion is obvious.
I rarely come to a point in debates about grammar where I take this stand,
and I apologize for it, but I'm going to have to wait until Okrand says
something about it before I change my mind.
-- ghunchu'wI'