adverb {rut} {motlh} and aspect {-pu'}
I want to describe the event of eating pizza, which took place in the past, looking at it back from the present. In case we use the adverbs {pIj}/{roD}, then (if my understanding is correct) we need to write: pIj pItSa' vISoppu' I've often eaten pizza (here the aspect {-pu'} is used) roD pItSa' vISop Customarily/habitually/regularly I've eaten pizza (here the aspect {-pu'} isn't used) Now, suppose we want to say "in the past, sometimes/occasionally I've eaten pizza", and we're looking back on the event. Do we need to use the {-pu'} here? rut pItSa' vISop rut pItSa' vISoppu' Which would be the correct choice? And if we want to say "in the past, usually I've eaten pizza", and we're looking back on the event, do we use {-pu'}? motlh pItSa' vISop motlh pItSa' vISoppu' Which would be the correct choice? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 5/2/2022 8:09 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
I want to describe the event of eating pizza, which took place in the past, looking at it back from the present.
In case we use the adverbs {pIj}/{roD}, then (if my understanding is correct) we need to write:
pIj pItSa' vISoppu' I've often eaten pizza (here the aspect {-pu'} is used)
roD pItSa' vISop Customarily/habitually/regularly I've eaten pizza (here the aspect {-pu'} isn't used)
Whether or not *-pu'* is used doesn't depend on the meaning of the adverbial, but on the meaning of the sentence. If you're describing specific instances of actions, use *-pu'.* If you're describing habits or tendencies without specific instances, don't use *-pu'.* In English, the difference might be expressed thus: /During the previous summer, I often ate pizza. /(You're describing specific instances of pizza-eating, so this is perfective.) /During the previous summer, I would often eat pizza./ (You're describing a tendency to eat pizza. That /would/ is the key to recognizing the imperfective nature of the idea.)
Now, suppose we want to say "in the past, sometimes/occasionally I've eaten pizza", and we're looking back on the event. Do we need to use the {-pu'} here?
Same consideration. Are you describing the eating of pizza or the tendency to eat pizza? It's not about the adverbial; it's about what you're describing. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 8:09 AM D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
I want to describe the event of eating pizza, which took place in the past, looking at it back from the present.
Unless you put it in a very unusual context, that description matches the idea of perfective very well.
pIj pItSa' vISoppu' I've often eaten pizza (here the aspect {-pu'} is used)
The perfective doesn't come from the adverbial. It comes from the idea of an event of eating.
roD pItSa' vISop Customarily/habitually/regularly I've eaten pizza (here the aspect {-pu'} isn't used)
The lack of perfective doesn't come from the adverbial. It comes from the idea of a tendency to eat pizza, or of an assertion that eating pizza is something that happens.
Now, suppose we want to say "in the past, sometimes/occasionally I've eaten pizza", and we're looking back on the event. Do we need to use the {-pu'} here?
rut pItSa' vISop rut pItSa' vISoppu'
Which would be the correct choice?
The correct choice would depend on whether you mean "I eat pizza" as an event of eating pizza (perfective) or as a general statement of what you eat (not perfective).
And if we want to say "in the past, usually I've eaten pizza", and we're looking back on the event, do we use {-pu'}?
motlh pItSa' vISop motlh pItSa' vISoppu'
Which would be the correct choice?
The correct choice would depend on whether you mean "I eat pizza" as an event of eating pizza (perfective) or as a general statement of what you eat (not perfective). Incidentally, none of your Klingon sentences imply "in the past". -- ghunchu'wI'
SuStel:
Whether or not -pu' is used doesn't depend on the meaning of the adverbial, but on the meaning of the sentence. If you're describing specific instances of actions, use -pu'. If you're describing habits or tendencies without specific instances, don't use -pu'. ghunchu'wI': The perfective doesn't come from the adverbial.
I'm happy to read your comments, SuStel and ghunchu'wI', because as it seems I was still seriously misunderstanding everything regarding aspect. I was under the impression that the way to approach aspect was "In case of adverb A use {-pu'}, in case of adverb B don't use {-pu'}", which was obviously wrong. Anyway, I think I understand now, but before moving on, I'd like to ask the following in order to be thorough. SuStel:
During the previous summer, I often ate pizza. (You're describing specific instances of pizza-eating, so this is perfective.) During the previous summer, I would often eat pizza. (You're describing a tendency to eat pizza. That would is the key to recognizing the imperfective nature of the idea.)
If I understand this correctly, then I could write: During the previous summer, I never/always ate pizza. (I'm describing specific instances of (not) pizza-eating, so this is perfective) During the previous summer, I would never/always eat pizza. (I'm describing a tendency to (not) eat pizza, so this is imperfective) Would you agree with the above? ghunchu'wI':
Incidentally, none of your Klingon sentences imply "in the past".
Yes, you're right. While I was writing the initial post I thought of placing a time-stamp implying "in the past", but I omitted it for simplicity reasons. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 5/3/2022 8:40 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
During the previous summer, I never/always ate pizza. (I'm describing specific instances of (not) pizza-eating, so this is perfective) During the previous summer, I would never/always eat pizza. (I'm describing a tendency to (not) eat pizza, so this is imperfective)
Would you agree with the above?
The first one is perfective /if/ you're describing specific instances of eating or not eating pizza, but the English doesn't necessarily mean that. /I always/never eat pizza/ COULD mean the same thing as /I would always/never eat pizza,/ so its perfectiveness is ambiguous outside of context. However, /I would always/never eat pizza/ is unambiguously imperfective. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIH:
During the previous summer, I never/always ate pizza. (I'm describing specific instances of (not) pizza-eating, so this is perfective) SuStel: The first one is perfective if you're describing specific instances of eating or not eating pizza, but the English doesn't necessarily mean that. I always/never eat pizza COULD mean the same thing as I would always/never eat pizza, so its perfectiveness is ambiguous outside of context.
I'll write an example to see if I understand this correctly. "In ancient Greece people always honored the gods of Olympus" Outside of context this English sentence could mean either of the following two: 1. Specific instances of honoring the gods which were always happening. (perfective) 2. "In ancient Greece people would always honor the gods" (describing something which used to happen) (imperfective) So, suppose I write: reH 'elaDya' tIQDaq olympus Qunpu' quvmoHpu' nuvpu' (this is the translation of the number 1 above) reH 'elaDya' tIQDaq olympus Qunpu' quvmoH nuvpu' (this is the translation of the number 2 above) Would you agree? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 5/4/2022 8:46 AM, D qunen'oS wrote:
jIH:
During the previous summer, I never/always ate pizza. (I'm describing specific instances of (not) pizza-eating, so this is perfective) SuStel: The first one is perfective if you're describing specific instances of eating or not eating pizza, but the English doesn't necessarily mean that. I always/never eat pizza COULD mean the same thing as I would always/never eat pizza, so its perfectiveness is ambiguous outside of context.
I'll write an example to see if I understand this correctly.
"In ancient Greece people always honored the gods of Olympus"
Outside of context this English sentence could mean either of the following two:
1. Specific instances of honoring the gods which were always happening. (perfective) 2. "In ancient Greece people would always honor the gods" (describing something which used to happen) (imperfective)
So, suppose I write:
reH 'elaDya' tIQDaq olympus Qunpu' quvmoHpu' nuvpu' (this is the translation of the number 1 above)
reH 'elaDya' tIQDaq olympus Qunpu' quvmoH nuvpu' (this is the translation of the number 2 above)
Would you agree?
I would agree that the two sentences mean what you intend them to mean, but I can't see any way to take the English sentence to mean anything except the imperfective version. Unless you mean that no occasion of honoring the gods was ever missed, which is not really a reasonable thing to say. It's virtually impossible to separate the sentence from its implied context. You'd have to set up a fairly weird explicit context for me to override the apparently implied one. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
I would agree that the two sentences mean what you intend them to mean, but I can't see any way to take the English sentence to mean anything except the imperfective version
Yes, I understand this. While I was writing these two sentences it seemed strange to me too writing ""In ancient Greece people always honored the gods of Olympus", and applying to it the meaning of "specific instances of honoring the gods which were always happening. (perfective)", thus translating it as {reH 'elaDya' tIQDaq olympus Qunpu' quvmoHpu' nuvpu'}. But I was more focused on trying to find an example to demonstrate how I understand this matter, so I didn't try to find another example. Anyway, I'm glad you and ghunchu'wI' took the time to correct me, because obviously I seriously misunderstood things. Thanks. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
participants (3)
-
Alan Anderson -
D qunen'oS -
SuStel