[89170] in tlhIngan-Hol
RE: nuq bop bom: 'ay' wa'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Tue Aug 23 15:00:06 2011
From: "David Trimboli" <david@trimboli.name>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <1314121610.8024.YahooMailClassic@web82606.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:53:46 -0400
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
jatlh ter'eS:
> --- On Tue, 8/23/11, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> Qov:
>>> I think I need some more help with this. I generally don't put an
>>> aspect suffix on a verb until I need to contrast it with other
>>> action in the paragraph. Are you saying that any verb must have an
>>> aspect suffix? I totally don't remember that. Could you point me at
>>> the rule? Or is it just that those particular sentences are
>>> confusing because you can't tell the aspect of the action?
>>
>> This is a rule that has largely been ignored by even the most veteran
>> of Klingon speakers. TKD 4.2.7:
>>
>> The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is
>> not completed and is not continuous (that is, it is not one of the
>> things indicated by the Type 7 suffixes).
>>
>> So if {meHDaq ba' vajar HoD}, it means Vajar has not completed
>> sitting (does {ba'} mean "be seated" or "sit down" or both?), and is
>> not sitting continuously. You might not use the suffix if for
>> instance you wanted to discuss the habits of Vajar: {rut meHDaq ba'
>> vajar HoD}. But in your story you're describing a definite instance
>> of Vajar sitting, which is probably either completed or continuous (I
>> expect it's {-taH}, given the context).
>
> I'm going to have to disagree here. I know that the section of TKD you
> quote can be read to imply that pretty much every verb has to have a
> Type 7 suffix, but I don't buy it. For one thing, what would you
> really use a non-aspect suffix verb for, in that case, except in the
> most contrived situations?
There are lots of reasons. Any case where a verb describes an action
that is singular and not complete will have no aspect suffix. {meHDaq
ba'pu' HoD} "the captain sat down on the bridge." It happens, and it's
done. {meHDaq ba'taH HoD} "the captain is sitting on the bridge." It's
an ongoing state. {meHDaq ba' HoD} "the captain sits on the bridge."
This describes what the captain generally does; it might be telling us
the duty station of the captain.
Duy'a': nuqDaq vum HoD?
Hung yaS: meHDaq ba' HoD.
Duy'a': vaj meHDaq HoD vItu"a'?
Hung yaS: ghobe'. DaH pa'DajDaq ba'taH HoD.
These aren't contrived reasons.
> For another, Okrand himself doesn't use the aspect suffixes this way.
Okrand doesn't usually tell naratives in Klingon. He gives proverbs and
speeches people might say, but little narrative. Those times he does use
aspect, we often dislike his usage. I used to strongly dislike his way
of expression age: {wa'maH chorgh ben jIboghpu'}. I thought the {-pu'}
was wrong, or at least unnecessary. But it makes perfect sense: my being
born is in a perfective state. The usual explanation we give to people,
that the aspect suffixes describe when the action takes place with
regard to the time context, is wrong.
> I always understood this to mean that the unaffixed verb was the
> default, simply describing an action, no special attention paid to
> aspect, and that it took an aspect suffix only when one had to call
> special attention to the degree of completion or continuity.
Except the book says no such thing. It's quite explicit: "the absence of
a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not completed and is
not continuous." Aspect is not ignored when an aspect suffix is absent;
it's explicity imperfect and non-continuous.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
