{-pu'} vs {-ta'} on verbs of speech
Unless someone: a. talks in his sleep b. is drunk/intoxicated c. is being possessed by the devil then I think that *always* we can use {-ta'} instead of {-pu'} to refer to the event of speech which has taken place. So, we can say {jatlhta'} instead of {jatlhpu'}, {ja'ta'} instead of {ja'pu'}, and (although they don't typically qualify as verbs of speech) {ghelta'} and {jangta'}. With the exception of the three cases already mentioned, people talk intentionally. They set out to talk, and then do so. Whether they finally end up saying the things they wanted to say is another story. But the "talking event", (where the aspect suffix refers), is always intentional. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 4/20/2020 8:55 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Unless someone:
a. talks in his sleep
b. is drunk/intoxicated
c. is being possessed by the devil
then I think that *always* we can use {-ta'} instead of {-pu'} to refer to the event of speech which has taken place.
So, we can say {jatlhta'} instead of {jatlhpu'}, {ja'ta'} instead of {ja'pu'}, and (although they don't typically qualify as verbs of speech) {ghelta'} and {jangta'}.
With the exception of the three cases already mentioned, people talk intentionally. They set out to talk, and then do so.
Whether they finally end up saying the things they wanted to say is another story. But the "talking event", (where the aspect suffix refers), is always intentional.
The point of *-ta'* isn't just that something was done intentionally. The point is that something was /accomplished./ It's not just that the action was performed under my own willpower; I'm making the point that I deliberately set out to accomplish something and did. Klingon is not a scientific language attempting to accurately define events in the universe. It doesn't describe things objectively. Every sentence has a viewpoint. Klingon is a means of personal expression. If accomplishment is not part of what I want to express, then I shouldn't use *-ta'* instead of *-pu'.* If I'm telling the story of how someone asked me if I like stuffed tobaj legs, and I want to express that I said yes, I probably won't use *jIjatlhta' HIja'.* Whether my speech was directed by my own will isn't important here; what's important is whether saying yes was an event I set out to accomplish and whether that matters at all. In this case, it doesn't matter at all. The appropriate sentence would be *jIjatlhpu' HIja'.* Imagine saying "and I meant to do that" after each sentence you think deserves a *-ta'.* If the "and I meant to do that" seems pointless, *-ta'* is not really appropriate. "He asked me if I like stuffed tobaj legs. I said yes, and I meant to say that." The addition is silly, so *-ta'* should not be used. On the other hand, "When I saw the guard, I killed him, and I meant to do that." Here, the addition fits right in, so *-ta'* would be perfectly appropriate, though still optional. This isn't a rule, just a guideline you can use to figure out which suffix to use. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
The point of -ta' isn't just that something was done intentionally. The point is that something was accomplished. It's not just that the action was performed under my own willpower
Oh, I'd totally forgotten this fact with regards to the {-ta'}.. You're right. Thanks for taking the time to clarify all this ! ~ mayqel qunen'oS
Am 20.04.2020 um 14:55 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
With the exception of the three cases already mentioned, people talk intentionally. They set out to talk, and then do so.
Well, based on that logic, almost everything is done intentionally. But here's an interesting counter example from canon: In Star Trek 3, Kruge yelled at his gunner {qaja'pu': jonta' neH} "I told you: only the engine!" This is repeated in TKD: <<< This suffix indicates that an action is completed. It is often translated by the English present perfect ("have done something"). {Daleghpu'} "you have seen it" ({legh} "see") {vIneHpu'} "I wanted them" ({neH} "want") {qaja'pu'} "I told you" ({ja'} "tell")
So it is possible to have an accomplished saying that was obviously intentionally, but yet not as an accomplished deliberately undertaken action. The difference is that you can of course speak intentionally, but you can speak without planning to say something, that's why -pu' is used instead of -ta'. Using {-ta'} with ja' sounds like "I finally went to the woman of my dreams and told her that I love her: vIja'ta'!" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.tlhInganHol.com
lieven:
Well, based on that logic, almost
everything is done intentionally.
You're right. In fact at some time I wondered, why we don't always use {-ta'} instead of {-pu'} for actions performed by people. Somewhere along the road, in my mind the sense of "accomplishment" was assimilated (as the borg would say..) by the sense of "intentional action". And it was then, when my understanding on the matter went down the drain. Anyways, luckily, after reading this thread I flushed my misunderstanding out of my system.. ~ mayqel qunen'oS
On 4/20/2020 11:45 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 20.04.2020 um 14:55 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
With the exception of the three cases already mentioned, people talk intentionally. They set out to talk, and then do so.
Well, based on that logic, almost everything is done intentionally.
But here's an interesting counter example from canon: In Star Trek 3, Kruge yelled at his gunner {qaja'pu': jonta' neH} "I told you: only the engine!"
This is repeated in TKD:
<<< This suffix indicates that an action is completed. It is often translated by the English present perfect ("have done something").
{Daleghpu'} "you have seen it" ({legh} "see") {vIneHpu'} "I wanted them" ({neH} "want") {qaja'pu'} "I told you" ({ja'} "tell")
So it is possible to have an accomplished saying that was obviously intentionally, but yet not as an accomplished deliberately undertaken action.
Kruge's quotation does not prove that. The use of *-ta'* instead of *-pu'* is always optional, even if the subject set out to accomplish the action and did it. When Kruge says *qaja'pu' jonta' neH,* we don't know if he doesn't think *-ta'* is correct here or if he's just optionally not using *-ta'.* Or if he even cares.
The difference is that you can of course speak intentionally, but you can speak without planning to say something, that's why -pu' is used instead of -ta'.
Or you simply don't intend to express the intention behind a completed action. *qaja'ta'*/I told you, and I accomplished my intention; /*qaja'pu'*/I told you, but I'm not saying whether I set out to accomplish it or not./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 4/20/2020 1:13 PM, SuStel wrote:
On 4/20/2020 11:45 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 20.04.2020 um 14:55 schrieb mayqel qunen'oS:
With the exception of the three cases already mentioned, people talk intentionally. They set out to talk, and then do so.
Well, based on that logic, almost everything is done intentionally.
But here's an interesting counter example from canon: In Star Trek 3, Kruge yelled at his gunner {qaja'pu': jonta' neH} "I told you: only the engine!"
This is repeated in TKD:
<<< This suffix indicates that an action is completed. It is often translated by the English present perfect ("have done something").
{Daleghpu'} "you have seen it" ({legh} "see") {vIneHpu'} "I wanted them" ({neH} "want") {qaja'pu'} "I told you" ({ja'} "tell")
So it is possible to have an accomplished saying that was obviously intentionally, but yet not as an accomplished deliberately undertaken action.
Kruge's quotation does not prove that. The use of *-ta'* instead of *-pu'* is always optional, even if the subject set out to accomplish the action and did it. When Kruge says *qaja'pu' jonta' neH,* we don't know if he doesn't think *-ta'* is correct here or if he's just optionally not using *-ta'.* Or if he even cares.
The difference is that you can of course speak intentionally, but you can speak without planning to say something, that's why -pu' is used instead of -ta'.
Or you simply don't intend to express the intention behind a completed action. *qaja'ta'*/I told you, and I accomplished my intention; /*qaja'pu'*/I told you, but I'm not saying whether I set out to accomplish it or not./
What are we talking about anyway? Kruge says *qama'pu' jonta' neH*/Wanted prisoners!/ The /I told you/ bit comes from an earlier phase of the language before the line was changed. The phrase in TKD we're looking for is *qaja'pu' HIqaghQo'*/I told you not to interrupt me!/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (3)
-
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel