[tlhIngan Hol] Using -ta' during -taHvIS

[SuStel]

On 2/25/2019 5:44 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 15:30, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
>>
>> Incorrect. Omitting a type 7 suffix on a verb explicitly means the action is not continuous and not perfective. It doesn't add optional meaning; if you are describing a completed action, you need a perfective suffix on it.
> I’ve seen you make this claim a number of times, but without providing a reference. Could you point out where aspect suffixes are described as non-optional? I’ve tried looking for it myself, and the closest thing I’ve found is in TKD 4.2.7 which says:
>
>> Klingon does not express tenses (past, present, future). These ideas come across from context or other words in the sentence (such as {wa'leS} <tomorrow>). The language does, however, indicate aspect: whether an action is completed or not yet completed, and whether an action is a single event or a continuing one.
>>
>> 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). Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are translated by the English simple present tense.

That's the one.


> I don’t take that to mean that a verb must necessarily take the appropriate Type 7 suffix it it happens to describe an action that is completed or continuous. The “usually” seems to leave room for the omission of Type 7 suffixes under unspecified circumstances.

"Usually" allows for exceptions, such as not being allowed to put a type 
7 suffix on the second verb of a sentence-as-object. And if a rule 
"usually" holds, then it usually holds, and is not merely optional.


> I also don’t think that the sentence about verbs with no Type 7 suffix being translated by the English simple present tense means that they always have to be translated that way. That could just be a description of the translating convention used in the dictionary or in the examples that immediately follow that description.

I made no claim about having to translate verbs with English simple 
present. That's just a TKD convention. Okrand doesn't follow his own 
conventions much; he says he'll translate perfective into the English 
present perfect, and then half the time translates it into the simple past.

There's a similar line in the section on syntax: "Any noun in the 
sentence indicating something other than subject or object comes first, 
before the object noun. Such nouns usually end in a Type 5 noun 
suffix..." There's that "usually" again, and no one is trying to argue 
that a type 5 noun suffix being "usually" on pre-object nouns makes them 
optional. The "usually" covers exceptions, the big one of which is time 
expressions. But if I were to say, "To indicate a beneficiary of an 
action, you put *-vaD* on the noun and put it before the object," no one 
doubts that the *-vaD* is required. It's not optional, even if you only 
"usually" need a type 5 suffix on the noun.

The "usually" is just part of Okrand's usual bit about the dictionary 
being only a basic sketch of the language.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190225/a0027290/attachment-0015.htm>