[tlhIngan Hol] {je} "too" applying to the adverb

[Will Martin]

When I read the end of this, I thought {ngugh bIpujpu’} could mean something close to {ngugh bIpujHa’choH} before realizing, nope. That’s what {bIpujHa’choH} is for. If you had previously been weak and that status became “complete”, as in, you are done with it, then you are undoing being weak, and the change is worth noting with {-choH}. Using {-pu’} instead would be weird enough to consider wrong.

And if you wanted to interpret {bIpujpu’} the OTHER way, to say, “You’ve been working your way toward becoming weak and now the process is complete,” that doesn’t work because the state of weakness is not finished, assuming that you are still weak. That’s more like {bIpujchoHchu’} or {bIpujchoHbej}, depending on the quality/threshold of weakness you are going for.

Or maybe {bIpujchoHpu’} could mean that you’ve been becoming weak, and you are no longer becoming weak. You just ARE weak. The beginning of your weakness is complete.

pItlh

charghwI’ ‘utlh
(ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)




> On Mar 31, 2022, at 10:08 AM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> 
> On 3/31/2022 9:45 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
>> jIH:
>> > ngugh bIpujpu'
>> > DaH bIpuj je
>> SuStel:
>> > The perfective on the first sentence is
>> > wrong. Being weak is a quality, not an
>> > action that is completed. There might be
>> > some unusual situations where being
>> > weak can be described as performed and
>> > completed, but this isn't one of them.
>> 
>> I can't understand this. Does this mean that one can use the perfective {-pu'} only on action verbs, and not on quality verbs?
> No, it means if you want to describe possessing a quality in the past, you're describing having that quality, not having completed having that quality. -pu' doesn't just mean "it's over now"; it means you're describing an action as a completed whole. But when you want to say that at a specific time you had a specific quality, this isn't perfective, it's imperfective. In that moment, you have the quality puj. You're not describing anything as a completed whole. I think you're still confusing past tense with perfective aspect.
> 
> Personally, I think our near-complete lack of quality verbs in the perfective isn't a coincidence. There isn't a rule against it, but I can't imagine it being a productive thing to do in any but the most unusual of circumstances.
> 
> I mentioned this on Discord the other day: in Welsh, there actually is a rule that you cannot put stative verbs (like hope, think, belong, know) into the preterite tense (which is basically similar to Klingon's perfective aspect, but only applies in the past), in a way similar to how English generally cannot put stative verbs into the present progressive tense. I think it's entirely possible that a Klingon grammarian would say that in Klingon you generally cannot put a stative verb (and in Klingon, "stative" means not only stative verbs like those listed above, but also quality verbs) into the perfective aspect. No such rule has been written, and I'm not claiming that anybody has to follow that rule, but it does make sense.
> 
> I think to put a Klingon stative verb into the perfective would be to alter it from a state to an event. The effect of saying ngugh bIpujpu' would be like saying "At that time, you weaked." There might be an unusual circumstance where you might want to say such a thing, just as there might be an unusual circumstance in English where you might want to say "I am knowing you," but it's not standard.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220401/b7d002ef/attachment-0001.htm>