<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/5/2022 12:09 PM, Will Martin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:EDDBBE43-AA00-41FB-BF34-251C989BB911@gmail.com">
<div class="">Just to clarify, if I wanted to say, “I was sick
last week,” meaning that all week, I was sick, I’d say {Hogh
vorgh jIroptaH}. I wouldn’t say {Hogh vorgh jIroppu’} unless I
meant that I started getting sick last week, I was sick for a
while, and I stopped being sick, all within the boundary of last
week.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I would translate as follows:</p>
<p><b>Hogh vorgh jIrop.</b><i> I was sick last week.<br>
</i><b>Hogh vorgh jIroptaH.</b><i> I was sick all last week.</i></p>
<p>For a quality to be true over a period of time doesn't require <b>-taH.</b>
When you add <b>-taH,</b> what you're doing is expressing its
flow over time and saying that it was continuous. Lacking <b>-taH</b>
doesn't necessarily mean it was discontinuous; it just means that
you're not describing its flow over time. You're just identifying
a quality that applied.</p>
<p><b>Hogh vorgh jIroppu'</b> wouldn't describe getting sick, being
sick for a while, and stopping being sick. All that does happen
within the week by implication, but all the verb actually
expresses is a complete event of sickness.</p>
<p>If I say <i>I ran home,</i> it's true by implication that I
started to run, I spent some time running, and I finally stopped
running. But none of that is expressed in the sentence. All it
expresses is a complete event of running, without expressing any
internal flow of that event. That's what <b>Hogh vorgh jIroppu'</b>
is doing, and for a quality, that's weird. Again, I'm not saying
it's possible, but it's weird, and I'm still not aware of any
evidence that Klingon does it, just as a non-native English
speaker might not be aware that one cannot say <i>I am knowing
you.</i> It seems to follow the rules, so it should be allowed,
right? Not necessarily.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:EDDBBE43-AA00-41FB-BF34-251C989BB911@gmail.com">
<div class="">That perhaps brings up a condition that makes {-pu’}
sensible on a stative verb. If the Time Stamp has a duration
that completely contains the duration of the stative verb, I now
see that this could make sense, given the model of the
perfective as being an action (or state) that is “compressed”
into the moment of its cessation, so the reference is to the
cessation, not the duration.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Think of it rather this way: the "moment" isn't necessarily a
single instant. If I say <i>The United States won its
independence in 1776,</i> that's perfective. The winning's
internal flow isn't being described at all; it just happened and
was done. It didn't happen in just one singular instant; it
happened throughout 1776, but this sentence treats the entire year
as a single "moment." This is a common thing to do.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:EDDBBE43-AA00-41FB-BF34-251C989BB911@gmail.com">
<div class="">If the context was my awareness that you were gone
all last week and I ask you why you are here now, you might
reasonably answer {Hogh vorgh jIroppu’.}</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You could answer <b>Hogh vorgh jIrop</b><i> I was sick last
week.</i> The perfective is not required to make this meaning
clear.</p>
<p><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>