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

[Iikka Hauhio]

I agree with SuStel in this case.

If you said

wa'Hu' jIghungpu'mo', pItSa' vIvunpu'

you'd say that there was a complete "being hungry action" and then a complete "ordering action", which isn't what happens. Instead, there is a state of being hungry that leads to the action of ordering pizza, but it doesn't make sense to describe being hungry as a completed action.

I know some will disagree with me, but I do think that there are some cases in which a perfective quality verb does make sense. For example, imagine a situation when someone's taste has changed due to a covid infection:

DIS vorgh jIroppu'mo', jaS jImum. Because I had an illness last year, I taste differently.

Here, I'm looking back at the complete illness and saying that due to that, I taste differently. In my opinion, using -pu' is fine as I'm talking about the illness as a whole, as a single point in the timeline sometime during the last year. I know some will disagree with me. It should be fine as the alternative (DIS vorgh jIropmo', jaS jImum. Because I was ill last year, I taste differently.) doesn't really differ that much and works equally well in this situation.

Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio

------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, April 7th, 2022 at 15.58, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> 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/20220407/109ab708/attachment-0016.htm>