tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 04 13:42:37 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}

David Trimboli (david@trimboli.name) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']



Steven Boozer wrote:
 > Qang qu'wI:
 >>> poSpu' HoD mInDu'
 >
 > David:
 >> The sentence does not indicate any time context, so we don't know
 >> what's "current." All we know is that the sentence refers to the
 >> the captain's eye-opening being complete.
 >
 > Except that {poS} "be open, opened" is not an action verb, but a
 > quality (stative verb).  Okrand on {-pu'} "perfective":
 >
 > This suffix indicates that AN ACTION IS COMPLETED. It is often
 > translated by the English present perfect ("have done something").
 > [TKD 41, emphasis added]

But he also says about {-taH} "continuous", "This suffix indicates that
an action is ongoing." Yet there are verbs of quality that take {-taH}:

    Hem tlhIngan Segh 'ej maHemtaH 'e' wIHech. (TKW p. 13)

(That's just the first one I found. I'll bet there are more.)

Restricting verb suffixes based on the word "action" in the TKD
explanation isn't right.

 > I could find NO examples of {-pu'} on a simple quality.

I agree that it's possible that quality verbs can't take {-pu'} or
{-ta'}, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not allowed. Once again,
this is a case of trying to prove a negative assertion.

 >  mInDu'[Daj] poSmoHpu' HoD
 >  the captain has opened his eyes"

I like this translation much better in any case.

 > which BTW could also mean that the captain opened someone else's eyes
 > (e.g.  an unconscious prisoner under interrogation).  (I wonder if
 > there's any way to distinguish "his eyes" from "his own eyes"?)

I think the trick is to distinguish the *other* eyes:

    qam mInDu' poHmoHpu' HoD
    the captain has opened the prisoner's eyes

SuStel
Stardate 7925.7





Back to archive top level