tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 14 12:18:10 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tujpu'

From: "Alan Anderson" <>
> 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.

No, I'm not making a distinction.  I think you're misinterpreting the
perfective on "active" verbs, though.  /chenpu'/ implies to me that the
ACTION of taking form is completed.  It doesn't matter whether or not the
thing exists afterward or not.  /ba'pu'/ means the ACTION of sitting is
completed.  The sitter may have stood up later (ba'Ha' / Hu'), or he may
still be sitting (ba'taH), but the single action of "sit" (ba') is

So no, I don't treat active and stative verbs any differently.  /tujpu'/
means the state of being hot is, was, or will be complete, and it implies
that the state is, was, or will no longer be.  /chenpu'/ means the action of
taking form is, was, or will be complete, and it implies that the action is,
was, or will not be still occurring.

> 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.

/-pu'/ implies /-be'choHpu'/?  I don't quite follow that.  I'm saying that
/-pu'/ isn't a tense marker, which is how you seem to see it (just a plain
old "before the current time context" seems like tense, not perfective).  If
a "completed" action or state isn't over with, how is it completed?  I don't
see any expansion here; I see what you're saying as an arbitrary
interpretation.  TKD doesn't go very much into what /-pu'/ means; how can
you say that yours is the correct interpretation, and mine an expansion?
Why isn't it the other way around?

Stardate 2285.2

Back to archive top level