tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 19 00:55:54 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tujpu'

ja'pu' SuStel:
>"Complete" does indeed imply that the state no longer is...

>It looks like you're saying that {-pu'} implies {-be'choHpu'}.

ja'qa' SuStel:
>/-pu'/ implies /-be'choHpu'/?  I don't quite follow that.

I don't follow it either, but it's how I read your first comment.

>If a "completed" action or state isn't over with, how is it completed?

I can't quite manage to explain why I have this conceptual problem with
{-pu'} on stative verbs.  I just don't feel an equivalence between the
"complete" of perfective aspect and the "ended" which implies that the
state is undone.

>...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?

I believe there is some justification for labeling yours an expansion
instead of mine, because you claim the implication of "complete" -> "state
no longer is".  I merely claim that such an implication is neither in, nor
obviously derived from, TKD.

I don't want to belabor this difference of opinion, and I certainly don't
want to see it turn into a schism.  I ask that someone (everyone) make a
note to put something in the next wish list about how properly to interpret
perfective aspect with verbs of quality, so we can all eventually read it
the same officially correct way.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level