I'm narrating a story about events which happened yesterday. I'm looking back on completed events, so I use perfective. Suppose I write: {wa'Hu', qaStaHvIS wej rep, jIQuchpu'} What does it mean ? "yesterday, for the duration of three hours, I've been happy" (i.e. my happiness lasted three hours), or does it mean that during those three hours, I was happy only once (for a period of time shorter than three hours, e.g. a minute, an hour etc) ? Or can it mean too, that I was happy more than once, i.e. my happiness going on-and-off ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 3/9/2020 9:54 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
I'm narrating a story about events which happened yesterday. I'm looking back on completed events, so I use perfective.
Suppose I write:
{wa'Hu', qaStaHvIS wej rep, jIQuchpu'}
What does it mean ? "yesterday, for the duration of three hours, I've been happy" (i.e. my happiness lasted three hours), or does it mean that during those three hours, I was happy only once (for a period of time shorter than three hours, e.g. a minute, an hour etc) ? Or can it mean too, that I was happy more than once, i.e. my happiness going on-and-off ?
Don't say this. Say: *wa'Hu', qaStaHvIS wej rep, jIQuch.* It's not about whether you're looking back on an event; it's whether you're describing an event as completed. Here, you're not describing your happiness as completed; you're describing it as occurring during a particular time. That your happiness may have subsequently ended is irrelevant. You're describing the moment it was true, not the condition after it came to an end. I'm not going to go into another conversation about what perfective might mean on verbs expressing qualities. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
It's not about whether you're looking back on an event; it's whether you're describing an event as completed.
ok, I understand this.. But there's something which confuses me.. Imagine this: While I'm driving from new york to colorado, I see a cat. If I say {nyuyorghvo' *colorado*Daq jISeDtaHvIS vIghro' vIlegh}, then doesn't that mean that "throughout the journey I see the cat" ? So, shouldn' we say instead {nyuyorghvo' *colorado*Daq jISeDtaHvIS vIghro' vIleghpu'} ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 3/21/2020 9:04 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
SuStel:
It's not about whether you're looking back on an event; it's whether you're describing an event as completed.
ok, I understand this.. But there's something which confuses me..
Imagine this: While I'm driving from new york to colorado, I see a cat.
If I say {nyuyorghvo' *colorado*Daq jISeDtaHvIS vIghro' vIlegh}, then doesn't that mean that "throughout the journey I see the cat" ?
So, shouldn' we say instead {nyuyorghvo' *colorado*Daq jISeDtaHvIS vIghro' vIleghpu'} ?
Two things. First, using *-taH + vIS* doesn't imply /throughout;/ it means /while, during./ If an action happens /during/ another action and the two actions take the same amount of time, then you might say throughout. But if one action is momentary /during/ another action, this isn't /throughout./ I'm going to simplify your sentence for the second part. /While I travel, I see a cat./ I intend here to say that I spot a cat on the side of the road as I pass it, not that I am staring at a cat the whole time I'm journeying. In the English sentence, the tenses employed mean that traveling is an ongoing activity that I am currently engaged in, and I am currently passing the cat and noticing it. The English sentence has put the listener or reader in the very moment of spotting the cat. They are not looking back on the moment of spotting the cat; the sentence puts the listener into the very moment of the spotting. To do this in Klingon, say *jIlengtaHvIS vIghro' vIlegh.* Lacking perfective or continuous on *legh* means the seeing is neither completed nor ongoing. I'm putting the listener into the moment of the seeing, so it's not completed. I'm not describing for the listener an activity of looking at the cat over a period of time, so it's not continuous. Use the unaspected verb. It doesn't matter whether the seeing of the cat happened before or is happening now; what matters is that I'm describing being in the moment of the seeing, not looking back at it after it's over. Now, if I wanted to put the listener in the position of looking back at the spotting of the cat after it's already happened, you need perfective, because that's what perfective does. *jIlengtaHvIS vIghro' vIleghpu'*/While I traveled, I saw a cat. /The listener is asked to put themselves in a position to look back at an event. The traveling remains continuous because continuousness is required to use *-vIS,* but now we're not looking at the seeing from the moment of the seeing; we're looking back at it as a completed event. The Klingon sentence needs to be perfective. When you lack a perfective (and continuous) suffix on a verb, that verb usually cannot be interpreted as placing the listener at a point where they can look back at the completed event. (Exceptions include times when you are not allowed to use aspect suffixes, like on the second verb of a sentence-as-object construction, and when you use *rIntaH* instead of a suffix.) This is why *jIlengtaHvIS vIghro' vIlegh* cannot mean /While I traveled, I saw a cat/ in the sense of a completed-from-my-viewpoint, one-time event of seeing. If an action is to be described as completed, it MUST have perfective on it. If *jIlengtaHvIS vIghro' vIlegh* is to be interpreted as happening in the past, it either means the speaker is asking the listener to inhabit a viewpoint in the past (like the historical present tense of English) or the seeing was a habitual or regular thing during the trip (while I was journeying, I would see this cat from time to time). -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you SuStel for taking the time to explain all this. Reading your reply, I realized many things, which I've ignored before. But before leaving this thread, I'd like to write some thoughts, on how I understand the use of aspect on verbs expressing qualities, when they are used before or after another verb with the {-taHvIS}. Now, don't misundestand me; I remember that you wrote, that you don't want to go into another conversation, about what perfective might mean on verbs expressing qualities. And I'm certainly not trying to draw you into such a conversation, although - to confess my sin, - I'd really love to.. But I'd like to write some thoughts, expressing my understanding (or total lack of..) on this matter.. After all, due to the severe restrictions, which have been placed in greece due to the coronavirus, I need to do something since staying indoors can become quite boring.. Anyways.. After reading your comments on the sentence {nyuyorghvo' *colorado*Daq jISeDtaHvIS vIghro' vIlegh}, I've wondered three things: 1. Do these comments apply for quality verbs as well ? 2. Do these comments apply if instead of the {jISeDtaHvIS}, we had a duration of time ? e.g. {qaStaHvIS wej rep}, as in the example of my first message ? 3. How do the conclusions drawn from your comments on the sentence {nyuyorghvo' *colorado*Daq jISeDtaHvIS vIghro' vIlegh}, influence my understanding on the sentence {wa'Hu', qaStaHvIS wej rep, jIQuchpu'} ? As far as questions 1 and 2 go, my answer is "yes", since I can't see a reason why things would be different with regards to be-verbs, or in the case where we wouldn't have a {jISeDtaHvIS} but a {qaStaHvIS wej rep} instead. So, I come to the sentence of the original post {wa'Hu', qaStaHvIS wej rep, jIQuchpu'}.. The way I understand this, writing {wa'Hu', qaStaHvIS wej rep, jIQuchpu'} means that: "..I'm here today, looking back on the day before. Then, there was a duration of three hours, and during that period of time I've been happy.. My happiness didn't last three hours; it lasted a period of time which is unspecified, but surely less than three hours.." I've wondered though, what the meaning would become if the same sentence, was to be interpreted from the "historical presence tense of english". And I came to the conclusion, that in this case, the meaning would become: "..I'm in the yesterday as it's unfolding, in the three hour time-span, but now my "having been happy" has taken place and has been completed before the commencement of the three hour time-spam.." Granted though, there's something strange with the above interpretation; if my happiness took place before the three hour time-span and has been completed, then how is it possible that it will be remaining completed only during that period ? This interpretation, gives the impression, that after these three hours my "having been happy", is somehow undone. Anyways, moving on, another question which troubled me was, what does writing {wa'Hu', qaStaHvIS wej rep, jIQuch} mean ? And after reading your comments on the {jISeDtaHvIS} sentence, I came to the conclusion, that it means one of two things: If the sentence is to be interpreted from the "looking back on events of the past" point of view, then it means "yesterday, during three hours I've been happy from time to time". And if the sentence is to be interpreted with the "historical presence tense of english" (or greek), it means that I'm standing in the yesterday, within the three hour time-span, and within the moment/moments during which I'm happy. So the final question arises: How the jay' do I say that "yesterday, my happiness lasted three hours" ? And the *only* way one can say this, is by use of the {-taH}: {wa'Hu', qaStaHvIS wej rep, jIQuchtaH}. Interestingly though, regardless whether the meaning of "yesterday, my happiness lasted three hours", would be given from today's-looking-back-point-of-view, or from the "historical present tense" of english point of view, the klingon sentence would remain the same, thus leaving things to context to clarify how the story is narrated. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
participants (2)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel