tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 03 09:42:13 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Aspects in Klingon

David Trimboli ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

On 2/3/2010 6:08 AM, André Müller wrote:
> Hi there,
> I have problems determining what aspect suffixes I am to use when
> translating something into Klingon or when writing something original in
> Klingon. I have a problem understanding aspects in general (also in Russian
> and Chinese). I've read Bernard Comrie's book on aspect and I've read
> everything that Okrand wrote about aspect in Klingon (I think), yet I don't
> have a "feeling" for it.
> I understand the system in this way:
>
> {-taH} = imperfective/progressive (an ongoing action)
> {-lI'} = telic perfective (ongoing towards a known goal)
> {-pu'} = perfective (completed action)
> {-ta'} = volitional perfective (completed action which was intented)
> {-ø} = ??? (what aspect do we have when nothing is indicated)
>
> So I can quite easily determin which of these aspects I have to use by
> asking myself if the action is still ongoing in the frame of the sentence.
> If yes, I ask myself if the action is running towards some goal, so I can
> decide between {-lI'} and {-taH}. If the action is not ongoing but already
> finished in the frame of the sentence, I ask myself if the action was
> intented by the agent (then I'd chose {-ta'}), or if it was unintented and
> happened without someone's will (then I go for {-pu'}). So far, so good...
> is my way of thought correct so far?
>
> Here come the problems:
>
> a) Does {-pu'} mean explicitly that the completed action was unintentional
> or is it simply unmarked for volition? Can I use {-pu'} for all completed
> actions and need {-ta'} only when I want to specify that the action was also
> intented, or do I really *have* to decide each time? I'm feeling that I'm
> overusing {-pu'}. The same question goes for the distincion between {-taH}
> and {-lI'}: do I use the latter only when I want to specify or do I have to
> choose?

TKD 4.2.7: "The suffix -taH continuous can be used whether there is a 
known goal or not. -lI’, on the other hand, can be used only when there 
is an implied goal. It is possible to consider -lI’ a continuous 
counterpart of -ta’, and -taH a continuous counterpart of -pu’."

The book doesn't make clear whether {-pu'} can be used even if the 
action was undertaken intentionally, although this might be inferred 
from the connection of the two quoted sentences. I tend to believe that 
{-ta'} is a subset of {-pu'}, not exclusive of it.

> b) What aspect do verb forms without a type 7 suffix have? Can it be somehow
> unmarked?

"The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not 
completed and is not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things 
indicated by the Type 7 suffixes)."

> c) As many learners, I think I might be overusing the {-pu'} (and {-ta'})
> suffixes. My most important question is: Are there any test questions I
> could ask myself each time to determine if I have to use an aspect suffix or
> a perfective suffix in particular? Or some English adverb like "already"
> that I can put into the sentence in my mind to check if it makes sense that
> way. I really need something like a test question or a test adverb to be
> inserted.
>
> For instance: "Person X became the friend of person Y." (a phrase often
> found on Facebook). When this sentence is displayed, the action lies already
> in the past (i.e., he already became Y's friend), so I'd use {-ta'} because
> on Facebook friendships are always volitionally induced, they don't just
> simply happen, as in reality. But do I really need a perfective aspect
> suffix here?

Simply ask yourself whether the sentence is trying to express that the 
action was completed or that the action was continuous. Don't worry 
about whether the actual, physical action itself was completed or 
continued, just think about whether this one sentence is trying to 
convey the idea.

ghot wa' jup mojta' ghot cha'.
Person two became (intentionally) the friend of person one.

I use the suffix because I am talking about an event that is definitely 
discrete and finished (and intentional).

ghot wa' jup moj ghot cha'.
Person two becomes the friend of person one.

Here, the action may be happening gradually, over time, as the two get 
to know each other. It's not happening slowly and constantly, though; 
every once in a while progress is being made in that direction.

ghot wa' jup mojlI' ghot cha'.
Person two is becoming the friend of person one.

This sentence might be describing two people who get to know each other 
over the course of an afternoon. It's one continuous process.

> And what's with pronominal verbs (copulae?) like {'oH} or {SoH} or {ghaH}?
> When I say "I was in Hungary this summer.", do I need a perfective aspect
> suffix?

There has been some discussion of this, and the examples we have have 
suggested that, possibly, pronouns used to describe being in a place get 
continuous aspects, while those that equate one noun with another get 
nothing. I think it's simpler, however, to just treat the pronoun like a 
verb when asking your aspect questions: is it a completed action? is it 
a continuous action?

puchpa'Daq jIHtaH.
I am in the bathroom.

This sentence expresses not only my location, but that I'm here over 
some period of time.

puchpa'Daq jIH.
I am in the bathroom.

This might be used if I were, say, running *through* the bathroom and 
wanted to tell someone where I was at that very moment. I'm about to 
leave, but haven't yet, so continuous aspect isn't appropriate.

puchpa'Daq jIHpu'.
I have been in the bathroom.

Maybe someone was asking about the bathroom's decor, and wanted to know 
who had been there. In this case, you might instead say, {puchpa' 
vIleghpu'} "I have seen the bathroom." My seeing the bathroom is an 
event that is done with.

> I know that when telling a story, I don't always need {-pu'} and {-ta'}
> because then the story itself is the frame and I only need to ask myself, if
> the action has already finished at the point of time that I am currently
> telling.

"At the point of time" is the usual way to explain this, but I think a 
more accurate way to describe it is whether or not your sentence is 
trying to *express* the aspect of the situation, regardless of the 
action's position relative to any time context for the sentence. 
Consider your sentence. Is it meant to describe, not only a completed 
action, but the completedness of the action? Not only a continuous 
action, but the continuousness of the action? Not only an incomplete, 
noncontinuous action, but the incompleteness and noncontinuousness of 
the action?

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/

Back to archive top level