On 2/25/2019 5:44 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:

      

        
On Feb 25, 2019, at 15:30, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

Incorrect. Omitting a type 7 suffix on a verb explicitly means the action is not continuous and not perfective. It doesn't add optional meaning; if you are describing a completed action, you need a perfective suffix on it.


      

      
I’ve seen you make this claim a number of times, but without providing a reference. Could you point out where aspect suffixes are described as non-optional? I’ve tried looking for it myself, and the closest thing I’ve found is in TKD 4.2.7 which says:



      

        
Klingon does not express tenses (past, present, future). These ideas come across from context or other words in the sentence (such as {wa'leS} <tomorrow>). The language does, however, indicate aspect: whether an action is completed or not yet completed, and whether an action is a single event or a continuing one.

The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not completed and is not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things indicated by the Type 7 suffixes). Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are translated by the English simple present tense.

      

    

    
That's the one.

    

    


    

    

      
I don’t take that to mean that a verb must necessarily take the appropriate Type 7 suffix it it happens to describe an action that is completed or continuous. The “usually” seems to leave room for the omission of Type 7 suffixes under unspecified circumstances.

    

    
"Usually" allows for exceptions, such as not being allowed to put
      a type 7 suffix on the second verb of a sentence-as-object. And if
      a rule "usually" holds, then it usually holds, and is not merely
      optional.

    

    


    

    

      
I also don’t think that the sentence about verbs with no Type 7 suffix being translated by the English simple present tense means that they always have to be translated that way. That could just be a description of the translating convention used in the dictionary or in the examples that immediately follow that description.

    

    
I made no claim about having to translate verbs with English
      simple present. That's just a TKD convention. Okrand doesn't
      follow his own conventions much; he says he'll translate
      perfective into the English present perfect, and then half the
      time translates it into the simple past.

    

    
There's a similar line in the section on syntax: "Any noun in the
      sentence indicating something other than subject or object comes
      first, before the object noun. Such nouns usually end in a Type 5
      noun suffix..." There's that "usually" again, and no one is trying
      to argue that a type 5 noun suffix being "usually" on pre-object
      nouns makes them optional. The "usually" covers exceptions, the
      big one of which is time expressions. But if I were to say, "To
      indicate a beneficiary of an action, you put -vaD on the
      noun and put it before the object," no one doubts that the -vaD
      is required. It's not optional, even if you only "usually" need a
      type 5 suffix on the noun.

    

    The "usually" is just part of Okrand's usual bit about the
    dictionary being only a basic sketch of the language.

    
-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name