[tlhIngan Hol] thoughts on the perfective {-pu'}

[SuStel]

On 4/4/2022 7:58 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
> 1. If I'm narrating events of the past using "historical present", 
> i.e. describing them as they happen, then no perfective is used.
> 2. If I'm looking back from the present on actions performed and 
> completed, then I use perfective.
> 3. If I'm looking back from the present on habitual events/actions of 
> the past, events which can be described by the "used to", no 
> perfective is used.
> 4. If I'm looking back from the present on completed events/actions of 
> the past, which weren't habitual, but happened more than once, 
> perfective is used:
> 5. If I'm looking back from the present on quality verbs, and the 
> quality described can be described by the "used to", no perfective is 
> used:

All good. I don't think I'd personally split them up this way, but I 
don't disagree with anything here.


> 6. If I'm looking back from the present on quality verbs, but the 
> quality described can't be described by the "used to", perfective is used:
>
>
> In the past the water has been hot
> In the past there was just one (or maybe two/three/more) occasion(s) 
> when the water was hot
> (the second sentence describes the intended meaning)
>
> pa'logh tujpu' bIQ
>
> In the past the water often has been hot
> pa'logh pIj tujpu' bIQ
>
> This is the best I can do when it comes to understanding the {-pu'}, 
> and I'd love to hear whether you agree/disagree with the above.

This one I don't agree with. The words /used to/ aren't necessary to 
avoid perfective; they're just a convenient, but incomplete, test to see 
if you're thinking in terms of perfective or not. Besides, I don't see 
why /the water has often been hot/ couldn't be said as /the water often 
used to be hot./ So I don't think you're looking at /used to/ in quite 
the right way.

I wouldn't use perfective on either of these. Even if you're describing 
water that was only hot two or three times, you're still describing the 
being hot, not a completed action of being hot. *'op ret**tuj bIQ*/in 
the past, the water has been hot; /*'op ret**pIj tuj bIQ*/in the past, 
the water has often been hot./ Putting the English translations into the 
present perfect tense is a feature of English, not Klingon. Klingon 
doesn't mark verbs for "past action that is relevant now" the way 
English present perfect does. You could just as easily translate these 
*'op ret tuj bIQ*/in the past, the water was hot/ and *'op ret pIj tuj 
bIQ*/in the past, the water was often hot/ and still have a perfectly 
correct translation. The concept of "past action, relevant now" doesn't 
exist in the Klingon original.

(By the way, I believe *pa'logh* refers to the past as a whole, not to 
some point in the past, which is *'op ret.* To refer to some action 
taking place at the time *pa'logh* makes very little sense, as if the 
whole of the past was just one little dot on a timeline.)

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220404/ec08a6f2/attachment-0016.htm>