perfective {-pu'} using/combining aspect with no aspect
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? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
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
Ok, thanks. I understand so far. But there's something else I've started to wonder. Suppose I say: {wa'Hu' jIghungDI', pItSa' vIvunpu'}, for "yesterday, as soon as I was hungry, I ordered a pizza". Doesn't this give you the impression that my ordering the pizza happened before I was hungry? I'm asking this because I understand the klingon as "yesterday, as soon as I'm hungry, I have ordered a pizza", meaning that I "feel" it very close to "yesterday, as soon as I'm hungry, I've (already) ordered a pizza". -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
Dana'an:
I'm asking this because I understand the klingon as "yesterday, as soon as I'm hungry, I have ordered a pizza", meaning that I "feel" it very close to "yesterday, as soon as I'm hungry, I've (already) ordered a pizza".
Perhaps you could say wa'Hu' jIghungchoHDI', wejHa' pItSa' vIvunpu'. to make clear that you have ordered the pizza as of becoming hungry. I think your suggestion (wa'Hu' jIghungDI', pItSa' vIvunpu') might work given the correct context, but may also be unclear without context. Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, April 7th, 2022 at 16.12, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, thanks. I understand so far. But there's something else I've started to wonder.
Suppose I say: {wa'Hu' jIghungDI', pItSa' vIvunpu'}, for "yesterday, as soon as I was hungry, I ordered a pizza".
Doesn't this give you the impression that my ordering the pizza happened before I was hungry?
I'm asking this because I understand the klingon as "yesterday, as soon as I'm hungry, I have ordered a pizza", meaning that I "feel" it very close to "yesterday, as soon as I'm hungry, I've (already) ordered a pizza".
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 4/7/2022 9:18 AM, Iikka Hauhio wrote:
Dana'an:
Suppose I say: {wa'Hu' jIghungDI', pItSa' vIvunpu'}, for "yesterday, as soon as I was hungry, I ordered a pizza". I'm asking this because I understand the klingon as "yesterday, as soon as I'm hungry, I have ordered a pizza", meaning that I "feel" it very close to "yesterday, as soon as I'm hungry, I've (already) ordered a pizza".
Perhaps you could say
*wa'Hu' jIghungchoHDI', wejHa' pItSa' vIvunpu'.* * * to make clear that you have ordered the pizza as of becoming hungry.
Yes, the issue here is that *-DI'* on verbs expressing qualities often makes little sense, because "as soon as" implies that something happens /as soon as/ the expressed change occurs. *jIghungDI'* doesn't express a change of state; it only expresses a state, so there's nothing "as soon as" about it. *jIghungchoHDI'* solves this problem. A brief glance through canon doesn't bring any quality verbs with *-DI'* to my attention, with one exception that doesn't really count. (/paq'batlh/ has *rInDI'*/as soon as it is finished,/ but the verb *rIn* itself already implies a change of state to a completion, so it's not a good example.) One wonders if /Q/*-DI'* is another semantically non-sensible combination in Klingon. The other issue here is that *-DI'* doesn't mean "as soon as the action expressed is finished." *vIHoHDI'* doesn't mean that something happens as soon as he is dead; it means, basically, /at the same moment that I kill him./ If you want to describe something that occurs upon the completion of the killing, rather than simultaneously with the killing, you'd need to say *vIHoHpu'DI'.* So for instance: *jaghwI' vIHoHDI', qabDajDaq jItuy'.*/When I kill my enemy, I spit on his face./ and *jaghwI' vIHoHpu'DI', tajwIj vISay'moH.*/When I have killed my enemy, I clean my knife./ In the first sentence, I stab my enemy and, as he stares at me with bulging eyes, I spit on his face. In the second sentence, I stab my enemy, then he drops to the ground and dies, and then I clean my knife. So if we have *wa'Hu' jIghungchoHDI', pItSa' vIvunpu',* we're saying that at the moment yesterday that I went from not hungry to hungry, I ordered a pizza. Again, "moment" in this context doesn't necessarily mean "instant"; these two events just happen approximately simultaneously from a human, rather than a precise, perspective. *-DI'* doesn't imply precise simultaneity, just a reasonable approximation. Hey, my stomach is starting to rumble. Hand me the phone. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
A brief glance through canon doesn't bring any quality verbs with-DI'to my attention, with one exception that doesn't really count.
Through my corpus search I found these examples: paq'batlh:
chu'DI' maS 'ej qaStaHvIS ram nuHmeyDaj may'luchDaj nIv je yIr qeylIS
TKW:
wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap.
PK:
matay'DI', vIHtaHbogh bIQ rur mu'qaDmey. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.
Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, April 7th, 2022 at 16.51, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 4/7/2022 9:18 AM, Iikka Hauhio wrote:
Dana'an:
Suppose I say: {wa'Hu' jIghungDI', pItSa' vIvunpu'}, for "yesterday, as soon as I was hungry, I ordered a pizza". I'm asking this because I understand the klingon as "yesterday, as soon as I'm hungry, I have ordered a pizza", meaning that I "feel" it very close to "yesterday, as soon as I'm hungry, I've (already) ordered a pizza".
Perhaps you could say
wa'Hu' jIghungchoHDI', wejHa' pItSa' vIvunpu'.
to make clear that you have ordered the pizza as of becoming hungry.
Yes, the issue here is that -DI' on verbs expressing qualities often makes little sense, because "as soon as" implies that something happens as soon as the expressed change occurs. jIghungDI' doesn't express a change of state; it only expresses a state, so there's nothing "as soon as" about it. jIghungchoHDI' solves this problem.
A brief glance through canon doesn't bring any quality verbs with -DI' to my attention, with one exception that doesn't really count. (paq'batlh has rInDI' as soon as it is finished, but the verb rIn itself already implies a change of state to a completion, so it's not a good example.) One wonders if Q-DI' is another semantically non-sensible combination in Klingon.
The other issue here is that -DI' doesn't mean "as soon as the action expressed is finished." vIHoHDI' doesn't mean that something happens as soon as he is dead; it means, basically, at the same moment that I kill him. If you want to describe something that occurs upon the completion of the killing, rather than simultaneously with the killing, you'd need to say vIHoHpu'DI'.
So for instance:
jaghwI' vIHoHDI', qabDajDaq jItuy'. When I kill my enemy, I spit on his face. and jaghwI' vIHoHpu'DI', tajwIj vISay'moH. When I have killed my enemy, I clean my knife.
In the first sentence, I stab my enemy and, as he stares at me with bulging eyes, I spit on his face. In the second sentence, I stab my enemy, then he drops to the ground and dies, and then I clean my knife.
So if we have wa'Hu' jIghungchoHDI', pItSa' vIvunpu', we're saying that at the moment yesterday that I went from not hungry to hungry, I ordered a pizza. Again, "moment" in this context doesn't necessarily mean "instant"; these two events just happen approximately simultaneously from a human, rather than a precise, perspective. -DI' doesn't imply precise simultaneity, just a reasonable approximation. Hey, my stomach is starting to rumble. Hand me the phone.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 4/7/2022 10:07 AM, Iikka Hauhio wrote:
Through my corpus search I found these examples:
paq'batlh:
*chu'DI'* maS 'ej qaStaHvIS ram nuHmeyDaj may'luchDaj nIv je yIr qeylIS
TKW:
wa' Dol nIvDaq *matay'DI'* maQap.
PK:
*matay'DI'*, vIHtaHbogh bIQ rur mu'qaDmey. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH *QobDI'* ghu'.
Good, then it's not impossible. It is sometimes difficult for me to decide when to use *-DI'* and when to use *-vIS,* and I think the two senses of English /when/ causes that:/when/ can mean "as soon as," but it can also mean "while." It might confuse Okrand as well, or he may have had a distinct interpretation in mind when he chose *-DI'* for these verbs. What is, for instance, the difference between *DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'* s/et fire on the side when there is danger/ and *DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobtaHvIS ghu'*/set fire on the side while there is danger?/ Maybe it's one of presupposition? The first suggests that, in the event of danger, one should set fire on the side. The second presupposes the presence of danger, and one should set fire on the side during that danger. This is speculation. The /paq'batlh/ sentence is problematical. *chu'DI' maS 'ej qaStaHvIS ram*/when the moon is new and during the night./ The English original is /on the night of the new moon./ What made Okrand decide to mix *-DI'* and *-vIS* here? The moon is (presumably) new all night, so it's not like it's describing the moon /becoming/ new during the night. I return to wondering whether Okrand was letting his English influence his choice of Klingon grammar: in English you might say /during a night when the moon was new,/ but you'd be less likely to say /during a night while the moon was new./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Thepaq'batlhsentence is problematical.chu'DI' maS 'ej qaStaHvIS ramwhen the moon is new and during the night.The English original ison the night of the new moon.What made Okrand decide to mix-DI'and-vIShere? The moon is (presumably) new all night, so it's not like it's describing the moonbecomingnew during the night. I return to wondering whether Okrand was letting his English influence his choice of Klingon grammar: in English you might sayduring a night when the moon was new,but you'd be less likely to sayduring a night while the moon was new.
Maybe Okrand tried to get the "as soon as" interpretation: as soon as the moon is new, during the night. There is no single point of time when the moon becomes new, it just happens that one night when the moon comes above the horizon, it's new, so -choH might be a little odd here. Using -taHvIS wouldn't get the "as soon as" interpretation. Though the English translation doesn't have the "as soon as" part, so I'm not sure it's what Okrand intended. The words "when" and "while" confuse me a bit as Finnish doesn't have them, they are both translated with the same word "kun". Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, April 7th, 2022 at 17.21, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 4/7/2022 10:07 AM, Iikka Hauhio wrote:
Through my corpus search I found these examples:
paq'batlh:
chu'DI' maS 'ej qaStaHvIS ram nuHmeyDaj may'luchDaj nIv je yIr qeylIS
TKW:
wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap.
PK:
matay'DI', vIHtaHbogh bIQ rur mu'qaDmey. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'.
Good, then it's not impossible. It is sometimes difficult for me to decide when to use -DI' and when to use -vIS, and I think the two senses of English when causes that: when can mean "as soon as," but it can also mean "while." It might confuse Okrand as well, or he may have had a distinct interpretation in mind when he chose -DI' for these verbs.
What is, for instance, the difference between DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu' set fire on the side when there is danger and DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobtaHvIS ghu' set fire on the side while there is danger? Maybe it's one of presupposition? The first suggests that, in the event of danger, one should set fire on the side. The second presupposes the presence of danger, and one should set fire on the side during that danger. This is speculation.
The paq'batlh sentence is problematical. chu'DI' maS 'ej qaStaHvIS ram when the moon is new and during the night. The English original is on the night of the new moon. What made Okrand decide to mix -DI' and -vIS here? The moon is (presumably) new all night, so it's not like it's describing the moon becoming new during the night. I return to wondering whether Okrand was letting his English influence his choice of Klingon grammar: in English you might say during a night when the moon was new, but you'd be less likely to say during a night while the moon was new.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Yes, the issue here is that -DI' on verbs expressing qualities often makes little sense, because "as soon as" implies that something happens as soon as the expressed change occurs. jIghungDI' doesn't express a change of state; it only expresses a state, so there's nothing "as soon as" about it.
Ok, I understand this. SuStel:
jIghungchoHDI' solves this problem.
At first, I thought too of writing {jIghungchoHDI'}, but then I went with {jIghungDI'} because I wanted to write an example where the {-pu'} would be meaningless. But now I wonder.. By using the {-choH} on {ghung} we avoid the obstacle of a meaningless {-pu'} on a quality verb. Also we want to report an event by looking back on it. So suppose we write: wa'Hu' jIghungchoHDI', pItSa' vIvunpu' In the sentence above, wouldn't it be preferable if instead of {jIghungchoHDI'} we had {jIghungchoHpu'DI'}, since we report an event by looking back on it? And returning to the question troubling me earlier, I still have this problem which drives me crazy: Regardless whether we write {wa'Hu' jIghungchoHDI', pItSa' vIvunpu'} or {wa'Hu' jIghungchoHpu'DI', pItSa' vIvunpu'}, can't this be understood as "I have (already) ordered the pizza, before I become/have become hungry"? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 4/7/2022 11:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
wa'Hu' jIghungchoHDI', pItSa' vIvunpu'
In the sentence above, wouldn't it be preferable if instead of {jIghungchoHDI'} we had {jIghungchoHpu'DI'}, since we report an event by looking back on it?
Only if you're reporting a completed act of becoming hungry. But that's not necessarily the function of *jIghunchoHDI'* here. You might be instead be talking about something happening /at the moment the change to being hungry occurred./ It's the difference between "Earlier, I wasn't hungry, and then switched to being hungry. Once this change was complete, I ordered pizza" (with *-choHpu'*) and "Earlier I wasn't hungry, then I switched to being hungry. As this change occurred, or just at the tail end of this change, I ordered pizza" (with only *choH*). Which one you use depends on which story you're telling. The version with *-choHpu'* is probably about how, because you became hungry, you ordered pizza, while the version with just *-choH* might be about how your hunger and dinnertime happened to coincide. There might be other reasons to choose one or the other.
And returning to the question troubling me earlier, I still have this problem which drives me crazy:
Regardless whether we write {wa'Hu' jIghungchoHDI', pItSa' vIvunpu'} or {wa'Hu' jIghungchoHpu'DI', pItSa' vIvunpu'}, can't this be understood as "I have (already) ordered the pizza, before I become/have become hungry"?
Saying *wa'Hu' jIXpu'* doesn't mean "as of yesterday I have already done X." It means "yesterday, I performed a completed action X." "Completed" doesn't mean action X was a fulfillment of a goal; it's just a way of looking at action X from afar, without internal parts. If I say /Yesterday I ate dinner,/ that doesn't imply that I ate everything on my plate or that I stopped when I was no longer hungry; it's just a way to describe the eating from a temporal remove, in its entirety without internal detail. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Note: The New Moon does not come above the horizon at night. That’s why you can’t see it. It comes above the horizon during the day. That’s what makes it a New Moon. Maybe Okrand was as confused about this as you are. A Full Moon rises as the Sun sets. A New Moon rises and sets with the Sun. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Apr 7, 2022, at 10:58 AM, Iikka Hauhio <fergusq@protonmail.com> wrote:
SuStel:
The paq'batlh sentence is problematical. chu'DI' maS 'ej qaStaHvIS ram when the moon is new and during the night. The English original is on the night of the new moon. What made Okrand decide to mix -DI' and -vIS here? The moon is (presumably) new all night, so it's not like it's describing the moon becoming new during the night. I return to wondering whether Okrand was letting his English influence his choice of Klingon grammar: in English you might say during a night when the moon was new, but you'd be less likely to say during a night while the moon was new. Maybe Okrand tried to get the "as soon as" interpretation: as soon as the moon is new, during the night. There is no single point of time when the moon becomes new, it just happens that one night when the moon comes above the horizon, it's new, so -choH might be a little odd here. Using -taHvIS wouldn't get the "as soon as" interpretation. Though the English translation doesn't have the "as soon as" part, so I'm not sure it's what Okrand intended.
The words "when" and "while" confuse me a bit as Finnish doesn't have them, they are both translated with the same word "kun".
Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, April 7th, 2022 at 17.21, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 4/7/2022 10:07 AM, Iikka Hauhio wrote:
Through my corpus search I found these examples:
paq'batlh: chu'DI' maS 'ej qaStaHvIS ram nuHmeyDaj may'luchDaj nIv je yIr qeylIS TKW: wa' Dol nIvDaq matay'DI' maQap. PK: matay'DI', vIHtaHbogh bIQ rur mu'qaDmey. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu'. Good, then it's not impossible. It is sometimes difficult for me to decide when to use -DI' and when to use -vIS, and I think the two senses of English when causes that: when can mean "as soon as," but it can also mean "while." It might confuse Okrand as well, or he may have had a distinct interpretation in mind when he chose -DI' for these verbs.
What is, for instance, the difference between DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI' ghu' set fire on the side when there is danger and DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobtaHvIS ghu' set fire on the side while there is danger? Maybe it's one of presupposition? The first suggests that, in the event of danger, one should set fire on the side. The second presupposes the presence of danger, and one should set fire on the side during that danger. This is speculation.
The paq'batlh sentence is problematical. chu'DI' maS 'ej qaStaHvIS ram when the moon is new and during the night. The English original is on the night of the new moon. What made Okrand decide to mix -DI' and -vIS here? The moon is (presumably) new all night, so it's not like it's describing the moon becoming new during the night. I return to wondering whether Okrand was letting his English influence his choice of Klingon grammar: in English you might say during a night when the moon was new, but you'd be less likely to say during a night while the moon was new.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
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@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
participants (4)
-
Iikka Hauhio -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin