On 4/12/2014 11:51 PM, Robyn Stewart wrote:
-pu' and -ta' are not connected to the PAST, they are connected to TENSE,in that their perfect usage tells us that an event occurs prior to the time context. Is that a typo? If not I have to disagree that they are connected to tense, unless you mean in the loose sense that many completed actions are in the past, such that perfective aspect and past tense (provided by context or timestamps) will probably occur together.
If -pu' transmits the idea that the verb happens prior to the time context, this is tense. This is the definition we all grew up with on this list.
If true, -pu' (and -ta') tells us about both tense and aspect. In sentences like {vIleghpu'}, the meaning is clearly, "I saw it prior to now." That's tense. If I say {wa'leS vIleghpu'}, that's STILL me saying I saw it prior to the time context, even though that context, and the seeing, is in my future.
In sentences like {qaja'pu'}, we are getting perfective aspect, without tense. The telling is being treated as a single unit without internal structure. It happens; it's completed. We've also seen examples, which I can't think of right now, where the meaning is plainly that an action was ongoing and then comes to a stop when it's done. That's also aspect (it could be called cessative aspect). Both are encoded into -pu' and -ta'.
Now, if someone wants to propose a truly tenseless definition of -pu' and -ta' that doesn't include the idea of "prior to the time context," I'm all ears. Either way, Okrand's apparently strange overuse of these suffixes is explained: he's using the purely perfective aspect.
I can't think of a way that this would make sense with a perfectiveaspect, since as of today tomorrow's killing is not completed as a whole unit. Wait, you do disagree with wa'leS HoHlu'pu'? Would you also reject wa'leS tujchoHpu' bIQ? How would you answer the canonical question in a complete sentence?
No, I just don't see a way for the a truly perfective meaning to be the one to come across. I think this is just a deficiency of my imagination; I'm not saying it's ungrammatical. Given more context, I'm sure I could make up my mind.
-- SuStel http://www.trimboli.name/ _______________________________________________ Tlhingan-hol mailing list [email protected] http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol