tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 19 01:37:05 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tujpu'

From: "Alan Anderson" <[email protected]>
> 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.

My dictionary (American College Dictionary, 1966) has the following
(relevant entries only):

11. Gram. a. denoting action or state brought to a close prior to some
temporal point of reference, in contrast to imperfect or uncompleted action.

--adj. 2. finished; ended; concluded.  --v.t. 5. to make complete; make
whole or entire.  6. to make perfect.  7. to bring to an end; finish;

Notice that "perfect" can apply either to an action or a state, and either
is "brought to a close."  If "being hot" is brought to a close, I'd say that
is "no longer hot."

Assuming we accept these definitions as correct, then I can't help but
conclude that "state no longer is" is indeed an implication of the word
"complete," or even "perfect."  There seems to be no natural difference
between an action or a state as far as completion is concerned.  This is why
I believe that my stance is the default one, and any other "discovery" would
be an addition (or restriction) not derivable from TKD.  Either that, or
Okrand was wrong when he used the word "completed."

Perhaps you are bothered by the fact that Okrand speaks of an action being
completed, but says nothing about a state being completed.  Certainly this
is a valid consideration, but I think it's just as likely that Okrand was
using the word "action" to refer to any verb (much as he uses the word
"sentence" to refer to any verbal clause).  I'm sure you wouldn't suggest
that Type 2 and Type 3 suffixes used on states aren't described in TKD
because Okrand uses the word "action" to define each of these!

My conclusion: Klingon completion suffixes imply an end to the state or
action of the verb.

Stardate 2297.7

Back to archive top level