tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 19 12:32:18 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: tujpu'

Good discussion.

I tend to agree with SuStel on this one. {tujpu'} implies that at the time 
setting of the sentence, the heat is gone. It had been there, but now it is not 
there. Similarly, I'd expect that anyone who said {jIba'pu'} is no longer 
sitting, since this interpretation expands on the potential of clear 
expression. {ba'} has more expressive potential as a stative verb than as a 
nonstative, nontransitive one.

My reason for believing this is a little different from anything anyone has 
discussed yet. My belief is based upon the observation of the difference 
between Type 3 and Type 7 verb suffixes. Type 3 (-choH and -qa') suffixes 
relate to the beginning of an action or state while Type 7 relates to the end.


It is hot. Nothing is said about beginning, ending, duration. Just the state.


It becomes hot. There's a change of state. We know nothing about the end. We're 
just commenting on the beginning of the state.


It resumes being hot. The state of being hot has occurred, ceased, then 
recurred. We're commenting on the repetitive nature of this change of state 
toward being hot. Likely, the change of state into becoming hot has occurred 
one time more than the change of state into being not hot, but that's a point 
for philosophers, not linguists.


It's staying hot. We don't care about the beginning or the end. The main 
comment is that the continuity of the heat is worthy of remark.


It's hot. We don't know when it started being hot, but there's a foreseeable 
end to the heat. We're looking both at the current continuity and the 
foreseeable end to that continuity.


It has been hot. It used to be hot. It's not hot now.


It intentionally accomplished the state of being hot, but now, that mission is 
complete. It is no longer hot. It apparently no longer needs to be hot, since 
it has sustained being hot as long as it needed to in order to fulfill its 


It has become hot. We note the beginning of this state. We don't know much 
about the end. While this is my natural interpretation, since Klingon has a 
tendency for suffixes to modify that which preceeds it, I'd accept the argument 
that this could also mean, "It changes to the state of having been hot."

I see that possible interpretation as not very productive, since that doesn't 
really add any new meaning to {tujpu'}, but its possibility ends any means of 
clearly stating that the state of being hot has begun.


It has become hot and we know that it is going to stop being hot. This is a 
finite marking of both ends of the state of being hot. I could see this 
combination useful for a spiteful recognition of temporary defeate by someone 
defeated in a battle by someone from a culture who captures, but does not kill. 
{vublI' jIHchoHlI'.} or {qatoy'nISchoHlI'.}

I do see an inconsistency in my own choices of interpretation here. In {-
choHlI'}, I'm choosing to have both suffixes refer to the action or state of 
the verb, while with {choHpu'}, I'm applying the Type 7 to the Type 3 that is 
referring to the action or state of the verb.

I think it would be very interesting to have Okrand comment on the potential 
interaction of Type 3 and Type 7 verb suffixes.


> From: "Alan Anderson" <>
> > 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):
> perfect
> 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.
> complete
> --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;
> fulfill.
> 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.
> SuStel
> Stardate 2297.7

Back to archive top level