[tlhIngan Hol] perfective {-pu'} using/combining aspect with no aspect

[SuStel]

On 4/7/2022 8:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> I want to say "Yesterday, because I was hungry, I ordered a pizza", 
> and I want to report the event not in the historical present, but 
> looking back on it.
>
> There are two options:
>
> wa'Hu' jIghungmo', pItSa' vIvun
> wa'Hu' jIghungmo', pItSa' vIvunpu'
>
> Since I'm looking back on the event, the obvious choice must be 
> {wa'Hu' jIghungmo', pItSa' vIvunpu'}.
>
> But isn't it strange saying "Yesterday, because I am hungry, I have 
> ordered a pizza"?
>
> Is using/combining aspect with no aspect something which we can do? Or 
> is it that in occasions as the above, the only choice is to report the 
> event in the historical present?

It's not strange at all. Yesterday, while a particular state was in 
effect, I performed a complete action.

Would you have a problem with *wa'Hu' jIloStaHvIS, pItSa' vIvunpu'?* I 
wouldn't. *ghung* and *loStaH* are equally imperfective.

It would be weird /not/ to include the *-pu'* on *vun,* because *wa'Hu' 
pItSa' vIvun* implies that what you're describing is not a complete 
action. It asks you to mentally occupy a moment when the ordering 
happens but does not express that the ordering was a complete act. To do 
this in Klingon's equivalent of the historical present is fine, because 
to speak this way is to mentally occupy moment after moment as they are 
described (the way /paq'batlh/ is written). To report the action after 
the fact this way would be weird.

(Technically speaking, Klingon does not have a historical present, 
because it doesn't have tense. I don't know what to call it when Klingon 
does this. Historical imperfective? Narrative mode? It's not really 
important; just recognize that it's not technically historical present.)

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220407/2d12ea8b/attachment.htm>