<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/27/2018 11:06 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2cLT42kauvtPa-VPfEyc_H0mL0E-F6GFD0wZh3B+W_Vkeg@mail.gmail.com">So,
could someone write a few examples, where aspect is being used as
tense, as an example of what to actually avoid ?</blockquote>
<p>You can look at "imperfect" tenses. English doesn't have them as
a verb form, but lots of other languages do. I think Greek does.<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>naH jajmeywIj bIQ'a' HeHDaq jIyIt<br>
</b><i>In my youth I walked on the beach.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>My intention here is to imply that I used to walk on the beach;
it was my habit to walk on the beach in my youth. Because we're
not talking about a specific action that was finished, but a habit
or tendency, this is imperfect. It is not describing a particular
action I completed. If I said</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>naH jajmeywIj bIQ'a' HeHDaq jIyItpu'<br>
</b><i>In my youth I walked on the beach,</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I would be saying that in my youth there was this one time when I
took a walk on the beach, and completed the walk. It could not be
used to refer to your habit of walking every day.<br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>wa' ben Ha'DIbaH vISopbe'<br>
</b><i>I didn't eat meat last year.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This describes the general fact of my meatlessness last year, not
any particular act of eating. It is not describing an action that
is completed. If I said</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>wa' ben Ha'DIbaH vISopbe'pu'<br>
</b><i>I didn't eat the meat last year.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This would be referring to some instance in which I was offered
meat and refused it. An occasion to eat meat arose, and I
completed not eating it.</p>
<p>I always hesistate to refer to a Klingon verb with no type 7
suffix as <i>imperfect,</i> because it's not necessarily exactly
what any other language means by the term, and the word doesn't
say anything about continuousness. In English, a verb is often
considered imperfect if it's in a progressive tense, and these are
often reflective of continuous action. This is why I usually
resort to the cumbersome <i>non-perfective, non-continuous</i> or
some variation thereof.</p>
<p>One more, taken from early canon. Kruge says to Valkris,</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>vaj Daleghpu'<br>
</b><i>Then you have seen it.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>He pitches it as a question without giving it an interrogative
suffix, but that's not important. He's referring to an action
Valkris did in the past and completed. If he had said</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>vaj Dalegh<br>
</b><i>Then you see it,</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p>and if it wasn't taken as clipped Klingon, Valkris would probably
take this as asking if she's looking at it right now. When not set
in the past or future, a perfectiveless verb may be taken as
occurring in the moment.</p>
<p>Exactly how you interpret a verb without a type 7 suffix depends
heavily on the context of the sentence, but barring some
exceptions it cannot be interpreted as a specific action that was
actually completed.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>