The way I understand {rIntaH}, it is to be used with action verbs e.g. kill, attack, try, hunt, etc. And even then, it is *only* to be used, when the action is intentional. Meaning, that we *can* say {SuvwI' luHoH rIntaH jaghpu'}, but we *cannot* say {loD luHoH rIntaH pumpu'bogh naghmey} "the rocks which fell killed the man". Of course, I may be wrong, and if I am, then please *do* correct me.. However, recently I begun to wonder, whether one could use {rIntaH} with be-verbs. For example, could we say something like the following ? taQ rIntaH DevwI' the leader is strange ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 1/23/2020 9:10 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
The way I understand {rIntaH}, it is to be used with action verbs e.g. kill, attack, try, hunt, etc.
There's no limitation on which type of verb you can use it with. *jIQuch rIntaH. */I was happy (but that happiness is over forever)./
And even then, it is *only* to be used, when the action is intentional.
Meaning, that we *can* say {SuvwI' luHoH rIntaH jaghpu'}, but we *cannot* say {loD luHoH rIntaH pumpu'bogh naghmey} "the rocks which fell killed the man".
Correct. Note, first, that the sentence you've given actually says /The fallen rocks kill the warrior,/ as if rocks which have already fallen (you used *-pu',* which means the falling is completed) now somehow kill a man (lacking aspect, the killing is not complete and not continuous). That is, according to the grammar of your sentence, the falling was finished before the killing happened. If you want the rockfall to be the reason for the death, you need to say either *SuvwI' luHoH pumbogh naghmey*/The rocks that fall kill the warrior/ (the speaker is stating the sentence from the moment of the rockfall and death) or *SuvwI' luHoHpu' pumpu'bogh naghmey*/The rocks that fell killed the warrior/ (the speaker is stating the sentence from a time after the rockfall and death, when both events are completed). If you want the sense of finality of *rIntaH* without the intentionality of *-ta',* consider an idiom. *SuvwI' luHoHpu' pumpu'bogh naghmey; bIQ'a'Daq 'oHtaH 'etlh'e'.*/The rocks that fell killed the warrior; there's no return from that./ The idiom literally means, of course, /The sword is in the ocean./
However, recently I begun to wonder, whether one could use {rIntaH} with be-verbs.
For example, could we say something like the following ?
taQ rIntaH DevwI' the leader is strange
This means /The leader was strange (but that condition is over forever)./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 1/23/2020 9:32 AM, SuStel wrote:
*jIQuch rIntaH.*
**/I was happy (but that happiness is over forever)./
taQ rIntaH DevwI' the leader is strange
This means /The leader was strange (but that condition is over forever)./
I should have been more careful with my literal translations of these. *jIQuch rIntaH */I set out to be happy and accomplished being happy, and that happiness is over forever./ *taQ rIntaH DevwI' */The leader set out to be strange and accomplished being strange, and that strangeness is over forever./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 23.01.2020 um 15:41 schrieb SuStel:
I should have been more careful with my literal translations of these.
*jIQuch rIntaH ... and that happiness is over forever./ ... and that strangeness is over forever./
I never saw {rIntaH} meaning that something is over, it means that an action is accomplished. From ST3 {vIje' rIntaH} means that valkris has bought the thing, the action of buying is complete, in the sense that this situation will last forever, not that it's over forever. I'm still not sure this would work with verbs of quality (which was mayqel's question). If I say {jIQuch} it's "I'm happy". Adding {rIntaH} would imply an ongoing situiation, not that it has ended. Meanwhile, the question is: Does {jIQuchta'} work, and what does it mean? {-ta'} implies that something is accomplished, so what do you accomplish, when you {Quch}? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Aspect
jIH:
{loD luHoH rIntaH pumpu'bogh naghmey} > "the rocks which fell killed the man". SuStel: That is, according to the grammar of your sentence, the falling was finished before the killing happened.
This is very interesting.. Reading your comment, I realized that this is a mistake, I'm making quite often. I never realized, that a {-bogh}ed and {-pu'}ed subject, can't actually be causing an action which isn't {-pu'}ed too. Thanks for bringing this to my attention ! ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 1/23/2020 9:55 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 23.01.2020 um 15:41 schrieb SuStel:
I should have been more careful with my literal translations of these.
*jIQuch rIntaH ... and that happiness is over forever./ ... and that strangeness is over forever./
I never saw {rIntaH} meaning that something is over, it means that an action is accomplished.
From ST3 {vIje' rIntaH} means that valkris has bought the thing, the action of buying is complete, in the sense that this situation will last forever, not that it's over forever.
This is true for action verbs, because the verb brings about a change of state. When you *je',* you change the owner of the object of the sentence. *rIntaH* means that the action of buying is over, and the new state of ownership is permanent. This works generally for action verbs. *maghwI' vIjon rIntaH */I captured the traitor./ I set out to capture the traitor and completed that task. What I did was so effective, it can never be undone. But verbs of quality (without syntax-changing suffixes) do not describe an action that brings about a change of state. They simply describe a quality. With *rIntaH,* a quality means you set out to be that quality, you completed being that quality (so now it's over), and what you've done is final. Maybe you're right in that *rIntaH* doesn't imply /over forever./ *jIQuch rIntaH* might mean that I set out to be happy, completed being happy, am no longer happy (at least about whatever it was I was happy about at the time), and my achievement of happiness at that time cannot be undone. It doesn't imply that I'm still happy, in fact it says that that particular happiness is over, but it does mean that nothing can be done to blemish the accomplishment of happiness I achieved. That sounds good to me. So *taQ rIntaH DevwI' *would mean that the leader set out to be weird and accomplished it, completing the weirdness. The weirdness is over now, but that accomplishment of weirdness can never be undone.
I'm still not sure this would work with verbs of quality (which was mayqel's question).
I think it works grammatically and semantically. Whether it's something one would commonly say is another matter.
If I say {jIQuch} it's "I'm happy". Adding {rIntaH} would imply an ongoing situiation, not that it has ended.
Except *rIntaH* means *-ta'* with finality. When you have *-ta'* you have completion of a goal, not something ongoing.
Meanwhile, the question is: Does {jIQuchta'} work, and what does it mean? {-ta'} implies that something is accomplished, so what do you accomplish, when you {Quch}?
It means you set out to be happy and you accomplished it. It means the happiness came to an end, because it's completed. If, on the other hand, you want to describe a situation in which you set out to be happy and achieved it and are still happy, you'd say *chIch jIQuchchoH 'ej jIQuchtaH.* We have a bit of relevant canon. From /paq'batlh/ we have *bIvalta':* *qeylIS lIjlaHbogh pagh Suto'vo'qorDaq qavan batlh bIyInta' 'ej bIvalta'* /Kahless the unforgettable, I welcome you to Sto-vo-kor, For you lived wise and honorable./ Here, Kahless has died. He lived honorably (as was his intention, and it is over now) and he was wise (as was his intention, and it is over now). That's not to say he can't be wise in Sto-vo-kor, but Kotar is describing the life of Kahless, which is over, and so therefore is everything he did in life. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
The one thing I’ve noticed about all of the canon examples cited is that they take the form: [complete Klingon sentence {rIntaH}. None of them have a subject noun following {rIntaH}, similar to the way {tu’lu’} never becomes {tu’} followed by a subject. Maybe that’s a coincidence and a sentence like *taQ rIntaH DevwI’* is grammatical, but I think we should at least consider that perhaps that should have been *taQ DevwI’ rIntaH*. It just feels better as “The leader is weird. It is finished,” than “he/she/it/they is/are weird. The leader is finished,” or “The leader finishes that [without using {‘e’}] he is weird.” I just see that as more of a stretch. Maybe that’s how it works, but I’m surprised by that. Temporarily dropping the willing suspension of disbelief, it looks like {rIntaH} was first invented in ST3 in order to explain why valQIS’s lips were still moving as the actress spoke in English and was overdubbed in Klingon using what should have been fewer syllables, and from that, I interpreted the example to be like the common use of {tu’lu’} where {lutu’lu’} would be grammatically correct— something fossilized and no longer participating in normal Klingon grammar. I honestly believed that you just took a Klingon sentence and slapped {rIntaH} at the end as a way of replacing a verb suffix in one sentence with a second sentence adding meaning back to the first one. I do not claim to know that I’m right. I just wonder which way this works. The very limited canon fails to make it clear. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Jan 23, 2020, at 10:34 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 1/23/2020 9:55 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 23.01.2020 um 15:41 schrieb SuStel:
I should have been more careful with my literal translations of these.
*jIQuch rIntaH ... and that happiness is over forever./ ... and that strangeness is over forever./
I never saw {rIntaH} meaning that something is over, it means that an action is accomplished.
From ST3 {vIje' rIntaH} means that valkris has bought the thing, the action of buying is complete, in the sense that this situation will last forever, not that it's over forever. This is true for action verbs, because the verb brings about a change of state. When you je', you change the owner of the object of the sentence. rIntaH means that the action of buying is over, and the new state of ownership is permanent.
This works generally for action verbs.
maghwI' vIjon rIntaH I captured the traitor. I set out to capture the traitor and completed that task. What I did was so effective, it can never be undone. But verbs of quality (without syntax-changing suffixes) do not describe an action that brings about a change of state. They simply describe a quality. With rIntaH, a quality means you set out to be that quality, you completed being that quality (so now it's over), and what you've done is final.
Maybe you're right in that rIntaH doesn't imply over forever. jIQuch rIntaH might mean that I set out to be happy, completed being happy, am no longer happy (at least about whatever it was I was happy about at the time), and my achievement of happiness at that time cannot be undone. It doesn't imply that I'm still happy, in fact it says that that particular happiness is over, but it does mean that nothing can be done to blemish the accomplishment of happiness I achieved.
That sounds good to me. So taQ rIntaH DevwI' would mean that the leader set out to be weird and accomplished it, completing the weirdness. The weirdness is over now, but that accomplishment of weirdness can never be undone.
I'm still not sure this would work with verbs of quality (which was mayqel's question). I think it works grammatically and semantically. Whether it's something one would commonly say is another matter.
If I say {jIQuch} it's "I'm happy". Adding {rIntaH} would imply an ongoing situiation, not that it has ended. Except rIntaH means -ta' with finality. When you have -ta' you have completion of a goal, not something ongoing.
Meanwhile, the question is: Does {jIQuchta'} work, and what does it mean? {-ta'} implies that something is accomplished, so what do you accomplish, when you {Quch}? It means you set out to be happy and you accomplished it. It means the happiness came to an end, because it's completed.
If, on the other hand, you want to describe a situation in which you set out to be happy and achieved it and are still happy, you'd say chIch jIQuchchoH 'ej jIQuchtaH.
We have a bit of relevant canon. From paq'batlh we have bIvalta':
qeylIS lIjlaHbogh pagh Suto'vo'qorDaq qavan batlh bIyInta' 'ej bIvalta'
Kahless the unforgettable, I welcome you to Sto-vo-kor, For you lived wise and honorable.
Here, Kahless has died. He lived honorably (as was his intention, and it is over now) and he was wise (as was his intention, and it is over now). That's not to say he can't be wise in Sto-vo-kor, but Kotar is describing the life of Kahless, which is over, and so therefore is everything he did in life.
-- 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
On 1/23/2020 3:18 PM, Will Martin wrote:
The one thing I’ve noticed about all of the canon examples cited is that they take the form: [complete Klingon sentence {rIntaH}. None of them have a subject noun following {rIntaH}, similar to the way {tu’lu’} never becomes {tu’} followed by a subject.
Maybe that’s a coincidence and a sentence like *taQ rIntaH DevwI’* is grammatical, but I think we should at least consider that perhaps that should have been *taQ DevwI’ rIntaH*.
This is true, and I've considered it, but since it's tangential to the question and unresolved I didn't bring it up. But the text of TKD says *rIntaH* can "follow the verb," and calls it a "two-verb (or two-sentence) construction," so there is reason to suppose that the text calls for it to immediately follows the verb. Or maybe "follow the verb" carries an implicit "and any subject it has." Or maybe it can go either way. Without a clear example, this question must remain unanswered. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
jIQuch rIntaH I set out to be happy and accomplished being happy, and that happiness is over forever. lieven: In addition, if possible at all, it would mean that I have turned to being happy, and that would last for ever. SuStel: That would be jIQuchchoH rIntaH. The addition of choH changes a quality verb into an action verb, and so follows what I said earlier about action verbs and rIntaH.
This is all very interesting, and it clarifies many things I've been wondering about aspect for years.. But I've been wondering, with regards to how the {-moH} fits in all this. Please read the following sentences, and tell me if you would agree with the way I understand what they actually mean: DevwI' vIQuchmoHpu' I have caused the leader to be happy, but that happiness is over DevwI' vIQuchchoHmoHpu' I have caused the leader to be happy, and this state of happiness continuous. It hasn't ended. And there's something else, I'm wondering too.. SuStel:
jIQuch rIntaH I set out to be happy and accomplished being happy, and that happiness is over forever.
I can't understand the "is over forever" part of the translation. Does the sentence {jIQuch rIntaH} exclude the possibility that the speaker of the sentence, can become again happy at some other time ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 1/28/2020 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
This is all very interesting, and it clarifies many things I've been wondering about aspect for years..
But I've been wondering, with regards to how the {-moH} fits in all this. Please read the following sentences, and tell me if you would agree with the way I understand what they actually mean:
DevwI' vIQuchmoHpu' I have caused the leader to be happy, but that happiness is over
No, it means I caused the leader to be happy, and now my causing that is over. In other words, my action of making the leader happy is complete. Whether the leader is still happy or not is not mentioned.
DevwI' vIQuchchoHmoHpu' I have caused the leader to be happy, and this state of happiness continuous. It hasn't ended.
No, it means I caused the leader to start to be happy, and my causing it is completed. Whether the leader is still happy or not is not mentioned. The difference between these two sentences is very slight: it's the difference between causing something and causing something to start.
And there's something else, I'm wondering too..
SuStel:
jIQuch rIntaH I set out to be happy and accomplished being happy, and that happiness is over forever. I can't understand the "is over forever" part of the translation. Does the sentence {jIQuch rIntaH} exclude the possibility that the speaker of the sentence, can become again happy at some other time ?
I revised my analysis after Lieven made a suggestion. It should be interpreted as me setting out to be happy, achieving happiness, and then that particular happiness ends. The *rIntaH* adds the connotation that the happiness I once had cannot be undone. It doesn't mean there cannot be future happiness, just that that particular happiness is achieved and done. Imagine, for instance, someone going to an amusement park for the express purpose of being happy. They go, they have a great time, they leave. The happiness is over, but it was very satisfying. To lend weight to the statement, the person adds *rIntaH* to mean that the happiness experienced that day cannot be undone. /Whatever happens next, I had fun today./ But it's really not clear whether Klingons would use *rIntaH* on a verb of quality. I'm just analyzing what it would mean if it were allowed. There's no rule against it, but there's no real indication that it would be used, either. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIH:
DevwI' vIQuchmoHpu' I have caused the leader to be happy, but that happiness is over SuStel: No, it means I caused the leader to be happy, and now my causing that is over. In other words, my action of making the leader happy is complete. Whether the leader is still happy or not is not mentioned.
ok, thanks. But let me ask you something, since there's something which still confuses me.. Would you agree, that the sentence {DevwI' vIQuchmoHpu'} could mean as well "I cause that the leader has been happy, but that happiness is over" ? I know that it doesn't make sense, as far as it's meaning is concerned, but I'm just trying to understand how things work. I understand, that in the translation you provided (the "I caused the leader to be happy, and now my causing that is over"), the {-pu'} refers to the {-moH} and then their combined meaning acts on the {Quch}. But couldn't the {-pu'} act on the {Quch}, and then their combined meaning being modified by the {-moH} ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 1/29/2020 8:17 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Would you agree, that the sentence {DevwI' vIQuchmoHpu'} could mean as well "I cause that the leader has been happy, but that happiness is over" ?
I know that it doesn't make sense, as far as it's meaning is concerned, but I'm just trying to understand how things work.
I guess it could mean that, but as you say, it doesn't seem to mean anything useful. Maybe, somewhere, there is some situation where such a thing might make sense, but something that specific would probably deserve much more than just one ambiguous line. Maybe you've got a time machine that can send happiness to people in the past. By pressing this button, /I make him have been happy./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
lieven:
From ST3 {vIje' rIntaH} means that valkris has bought the thing, the action of buying is complete, in the sense that this situation will last forever, not that it's over forever. SuStel: This is true for action verbs, because the verb brings about a change of state. When you je', you change the owner of the object of the sentence. rIntaH means that the action of buying is over, and the new state of ownership is permanent. This works generally for action verbs. But verbs of quality (without syntax- changing suffixes) do not describe an action that brings about a change of state. They simply describe a quality. With rIntaH, a quality means you set out to be that quality, you completed being that quality (so now it's over), and what you've done is final.
If I understand correctly, by "verbs of quality", we mean be-verbs, which are intransitive. But what happens, when we have an intransitive non-be-verb, as is the case with {ratlh} ? Does it behave with regards to aspect, as a be-verb ? For simplicity reasons, lets leave aside the {rIntaH}. Suppose I write: {pa' jIratlhpu'}. Would you agree that it means: "I have remained there, but now my remaining there is over, i.e. now I'm somewhere else" ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 1/29/2020 10:13 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
If I understand correctly, by "verbs of quality", we mean be-verbs, which are intransitive.
But what happens, when we have an intransitive non-be-verb, as is the case with {ratlh} ? Does it behave with regards to aspect, as a be-verb ?
For simplicity reasons, lets leave aside the {rIntaH}.
Suppose I write: {pa' jIratlhpu'}.
Would you agree that it means: "I have remained there, but now my remaining there is over, i.e. now I'm somewhere else" ?
Transitivity is irrelevant here. What's important to this discussion is whether it's a verb of quality, and whether that changes whether an aspect suffix is allowed. Yes, I agree with your interpretation of *pa' jIratlhpu',* with the usual caveat that there is no /now/ built into the sentence; the remaining could have occurred and been completed in the past /(I remained there) /or future /(I will have remained there)./ But I recognize you were probably just using /now/ for simplicity. I might go back later, or I might have already returned and I'm there again now, but that particular act of remaining is finished. Here's a possibly easier to grasp intransitive action verb: *quSDaq jIQongpu'*/I slept on the chair; I will have slept on the chair./ It means I completed an act of sleeping, probably followed by waking up. That act of sleeping is finished. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
lieven:
From ST3 {vIje' rIntaH} means that valkris has bought the thing, the action of buying is complete, in the sense that this situation will last forever, not that it's over forever. SuStel: This is true for action verbs, because the verb brings about a change of state. When you je', you change the owner of the object of the sentence. rIntaH means that the action of buying is over, and the new state of ownership is permanent. This works generally for action verbs. maghwI' vIjon rIntaH I captured the traitor. I set out to capture the traitor and completed that task. What I did was so effective, it can never be undone.
As this thread continues, I realize that I'm realizing facts with regards to aspect, which I never realized before.. And now, I've begun to wonder with regards to the meaning of the {-choHpu'} & {-choHmoHpu'} in verbs, such as {jon}. If it's not much trouble, read the following sentences, and tell me if you'd agree with the way I understand their meaning. {jagh vIjonchoHpu'}: I've have begun to capture the enemy. The event which has been completed, is "my beginning the enemy's capture". But this sentence, does not specify whether "the capturing" is completed. Theoretically, it could mean as well "I begin that I have captured. the enemy", but this translation, makes no sense. {HoDvaD jagh vIjonchoHmoHpu'}: I've caused the captain to begin to capture the enemy. The event which has been completed, is the "my causing of the captain". The sentence does not specify, whether the "capturing is completed". Theoretically, it could mean too "I cause that the captain has begun to capture the enemy", but again this makes no sense. And there's something else I'd like to ask you.. Suppose I write: {reH jIQuchpu'} always I've been happy ..with the intention of meaning something like "In the past, I'always been happy to (whatever)". Does it make any sense ? The only way I can understand it is, "I've been happy, that happiness is over, and this always has happened". Would you understand this sentence differently ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 1/30/2020 8:47 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
{jagh vIjonchoHpu'}:
I've have begun to capture the enemy. The event which has been completed, is "my beginning the enemy's capture". But this sentence, does not specify whether "the capturing" is completed.
Theoretically, it could mean as well "I begin that I have captured. the enemy", but this translation, makes no sense.
You have it exactly right. The beginning of the capturing is a completed event. Now you're onto the stage that could no longer be called /beginning./
{HoDvaD jagh vIjonchoHmoHpu'}:
I've caused the captain to begin to capture the enemy. The event which has been completed, is the "my causing of the captain". The sentence does not specify, whether the "capturing is completed".
Theoretically, it could mean too "I cause that the captain has begun to capture the enemy", but again this makes no sense.
Correct. I'll bet Klingon time travel involves a lot of those nonsense combinations starting to make sense.
Suppose I write:
{reH jIQuchpu'} always I've been happy
..with the intention of meaning something like "In the past, I'always been happy to (whatever)".
Does it make any sense ? The only way I can understand it is, "I've been happy, that happiness is over, and this always has happened".
Would you understand this sentence differently ?
When one says /I've always been happy,/ one generally means that happiness has always been one's state up to this point, and says nothing about whether happiness will continue. That would be *reH jIQuch* with no completion aspect. It's not describing something that's completed; it's describing something that occurred in the past without regard to its completion, and that would be tense. But the sentence *reH jIQuch* doesn't place the sentiment in any time context, so it's just as likely to mean /I am always happy/ or /I will always be happy/ as it does /I have always been happy./ Or it could mean all of those things at once. To get the meaning you want, you must add an explicit time context. *pa'logh reH jIQuch*/In the past I was always happy./ If you include the perfective suffix, it means something like you're looking back at the whole experience of being happy, including its ending. I don't think the *reH* on such a sentence would be very useful. Maybe it emphasizes how complete the happiness was over a long time, that there were no breaks in the overall happiness. This might contrast it with *motlh jIQuchpu'*/I was usually happy; that happiness is completed./ Again, I think perfective on quality verbs can be tricky and not very useful, so I wouldn't hold up my attempts at discerning a meaning as definitive. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Again, I think perfective on quality verbs can be tricky and not very useful
Indeed ! I remember, when I was reading for the first time tkd's section on type-7 verb suffixes, I said to myself "ok, sounds simple..". Only to realize later on, that my worst nightmare would become the correct use of aspect. Luckily, this thread has been a tremendous help. But let me ask you just one more thing.. When we say: {taj vISampu'} we mean "I have located the knife, and the event of my locating the knife is over". And as soon as the knife has been located, a new reality has begun, the reality of "the knife having been located". I noticed earlier in the thread, that you wrote: "The addition of choH changes a quality verb into an action verb". So, suppose we write: {jIQuchchoHpu'} The way I understand this sentence, is: I have become happy, and the event which has been completed, is the "my becoming". But the sentence doesn' t specify whether my happiness is over. In contrast with the {jIQuchpu'} which means "I've been happy", specifying though that this happiness is over. Would you agree with this analysis ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 1/30/2020 10:09 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
De'vID:
mu'tlheghvam yIqel: {ghorgh tujchoHpu' bIQ?}
The way I understand this sentence, it means:
"When will the water have become hot ?"
Meaning "when will the event of the becoming hot of the water, be complete ?".
You've got it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIH:
{HoDvaD jagh vIjonchoHmoHpu'}: I've caused the captain to begin to capture the enemy. The event which has been completed, is the "my causing of the captain". The sentence does not specify, whether the "capturing is completed". Theoretically, it could mean too "I cause that the captain has begun to capture the enemy", but again this makes no sense. SuStel: Correct. I'll bet Klingon time travel involves a lot of those nonsense combinations starting to make sense.
Would you agree, that the sentence {HoDvaD jagh vIjonchoHmoHpu'}, can have the following meaning too ? "I have begun to cause that the captain captures the enemy". With the completed event, being my "beginning to cause the captain". Moving on.. During the weekend, I had the chance to re-read this thread, and come to the following conclusions.. If it's not much trouble, tell me whether you agree, with the following statements: 1. Everything which has been said for the {-pu'} in this thread, with regards to how it interacts with any other suffixes, goes to for the {-ta'}, {-lI'}, and {-taH}. The only difference, is that the {-ta'} expresses intention, the {-lI'} progress to a known goal or stopping point, and the {-taH} continuous action. (I know this is probably obvious, but I'm writing this, for the sake of being thorough) 2. In the case that any of the four aspect suffixes, coexists with any other verb suffix, then every suffix including the aspect suffix, can act on any other suffix, thus producing many possible translations. And finally, there's something I'm wondering with regards to the {-taHvIS}.. If we write the sentence: {HoDvaD jagh vIjonchoHmoHtaHvIS, latlh Duj vIlegh} Would you agree, that any of the following translations is possible ? 1. "While I'm beginning to cause that the captain captures the enemy, I see another ship". (i.e. the {-taHvIS} acts on the {-choH}). 2. "While I'm causing the captain to begin to capture the enemy, I see another ship" (i.e. the {-taHvIS} acts on the {-moH}). 3. I cause, that while the captain is beginning to capture the enemy, I see another ship. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 2/3/2020 7:58 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
tell me whether you agree, with the following statements:
All your questions boil down to whether the speaker can apply the meaning of any given suffix to any other chosen element of the sentence, or whether there is some kind of restriction on this. The answer is, we don't know. There seems to be some flexibility to it, but whether that flexibility has set limits is unknown. The best source of determining this for any given application is simply to decide whether your meaning is obvious. If it isn't, reword it. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 1/30/2020 10:03 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
When we say: {taj vISampu'} we mean "I have located the knife, and the event of my locating the knife is over".
And as soon as the knife has been located, a new reality has begun, the reality of "the knife having been located".
I noticed earlier in the thread, that you wrote: "The addition of choH changes a quality verb into an action verb".
So, suppose we write:
{jIQuchchoHpu'}
The way I understand this sentence, is:
I have become happy, and the event which has been completed, is the "my becoming". But the sentence doesn' t specify whether my happiness is over.
In contrast with the {jIQuchpu'} which means "I've been happy", specifying though that this happiness is over.
Would you agree with this analysis ?
Yes, entirely. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 23.01.2020 um 15:32 schrieb SuStel:
*jIQuch rIntaH. */I was happy (but that happiness is over forever)./
Are you sure? How can you deliberately decide to have completed being happy? In addition, if possible at all, it would mean that I have turned to being happy, and that would last for ever. What does {jIQuchta'} mean? TKD: This suffix is similar to {-pu',} but it is used when an activity was deliberately undertaken, the implication being that someone set out to do something and in fact did it. [...] instead of using the suffix {-ta',} [...] The resulting construction, {rIntaH,} literally means "it continues to be finished" or "it remains accomplished," It is used to indicate that the action denoted by the preceding verb is a fait accompli: it is done, and it cannot be undone. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Type7VerbSuffixes
Two more examples of {rIntaH} from the paq'batlh to add to the discussion: ghIq Qo'noSDaq Qap rIntaH 'e' Sov qeylIS qotar lIjbe’ Then, the time came when Kahless saw That his work on Kronos was done, He did not forget Kotar. (PB) porgh HoH wa' 'etlh qa' tlhabmoH wa' 'etlh tlhIngan choHlu' rIntaH One blade to extinguish the physical life, One blade for freeing the soul, The Klingon's transition was complete. (PB) [In this scene Lukara kills Kahless in the assisted ritual suicide {Heghbat} ceremony. Since Klingons have two hearts she needed to use the double-bladed {ma’veq} *mevak* knife to kill him with one thrust.] -- Voragh ----------------------------------------Original Message---------------------------------------- From: Lieven L. Litaer TKD: This suffix [{-ta'}] is similar to {-pu',} but it is used when an activity was deliberately undertaken, the implication being that someone set out to do something and in fact did it. [...] instead of using the suffix {-ta',} [...] The resulting construction, {rIntaH,} literally means "it continues to be finished" or "it remains accomplished," It is used to indicate that the action denoted by the preceding verb is a fait accompli: it is done, and it cannot be undone.
On 1/23/2020 10:30 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
Two more examples of {rIntaH} from the paq'batlh to add to the discussion:
Yes, but both of these are action verbs, not quality verbs, so they don't illustration the current question about *rIntaH* or perfective on quality verbs. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 1/23/2020 9:46 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 23.01.2020 um 15:32 schrieb SuStel:
*jIQuch rIntaH. */I was happy (but that happiness is over forever)./
Are you sure? How can you deliberately decide to have completed being happy?
Maybe you decide to live a happy life. When your life is over, your happiness is over, and you accomplished it. Or maybe you decide to have happiness on the job. When you leave that job, that particular happiness is over, and you accomplished it.
In addition, if possible at all, it would mean that I have turned to being happy, and that would last for ever.
That would be *jIQuchchoH rIntaH.* The addition of *choH* changes a quality verb into an action verb, and so follows what I said earlier about action verbs and *rIntaH.*
What does {jIQuchta'} mean?
TKD: This suffix is similar to {-pu',} but it is used when an activity was deliberately undertaken, the implication being that someone set out to do something and in fact did it.
[...] instead of using the suffix {-ta',} [...] The resulting construction, {rIntaH,} literally means "it continues to be finished" or "it remains accomplished," It is used to indicate that the action denoted by the preceding verb is a fait accompli: it is done, and it cannot be undone.
My happiness is done and cannot be undone. It doesn't mean I am still happy or that my happiness is permanent; it just means that the happiness I experienced once upon a time cannot be undone. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (6)
-
De'vID -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin