tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 27 01:03:40 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

KBLC (old): " Qu'Hom " : lutHomwIj wa'DIch.

>From: "HoD trI'Qal" <[email protected]>
>Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 14:16:42 -0400 (EDT)


I know this is Beginner's stuff, but you *did* invoke my name once or
twice, so I guess I get to butt in.

>Paul Mackievo':

>>lutHomwIj wa'DIch.
>>My first short story.
>>
>>(Comments:
>> I'm fairly happy with the more ambitious sentence structures I've attempted,
>>  but please point out all problems!
>> The story is to be told from a "third person perfective" perspective! Hence 
>>  many verbs contain the " pu' " aspect suffix. However, I am concerned that 
>>  I may have overused it.

>Not too badly.  When people started translating vast amounts of text, 
>especially stories, they also ran into this problem.  I believe it was Mark 
>Shoulson who first stopped putting on the suffixes, explaining that the tense 
>of the story is understood to be in the past tense... so -pu'/-ta' need only 
>be used for what is really past tense in the story.

>Confuse you?  Yeah, it does me, too.

>Basically, go back and look at your story.  If the even it happening in the 
>now-time of the story (ie, if this was happening *right now*, and you were 
>telling it as it happened... like a radio announcer... would you be using past 
>tense for this?), then ditch the suffixes; they really aren't required.

I'm not sure I was the first (Okrand did it before me!), but I wrote the
article that's usually quoted.  Let's see if I can explain a litle better.

The first thing you have to remember is that "-ta'/pu'" is *NOT* a "past
tense".  Say that again.  It isn't a past tense.  It's not the equivalent
of "Bob went to the store".  It just isn't.  Okrand says that Klingon
doesn't express tense as such, right in section 4.2.7.  So what are they?
They are indications of *aspect*.  The distinction is one that may be hard
to draw sometimes, but works if you think about it.  As Okrand says, the
"-pu'" aspect means that the action has been completed and is over.  Not so
much that it's over *now* (since that would make it like a tense), but that
it's over as of the time under discussion.  If you're talking in the
present in Klingon (i.e. you have words like "DaH" spoken or implied in the
sentence), then "HoHpu'" is more like the English present perfect
construction: he has killed (per Okrand, 4.2.7).  If you're talking in past
time, then it would be the past perfect (he had killed) and similarly
future perfect for future (wa'leS wej jagh vIHoHpu': tomorrow I will have
killed three enemies).  To say "Yesterday I killed a tribble", you just say
"wa'Hu' yIH vIHoH.".  If you say "vIHoHpu'", that means "I had killed".
Recall in CK, when Okrand says "Yesterday I was hungry", it's "wa'Hu'
jIghung" (no -pu').  The time-frame is set by context (in this case the
word "wa'Hu'", and the activity is happening in that time-frame, so there's
no aspect-marker.  If the activity had been finished before the time-frame,
we'd use "-pu'" and so on.  Is this helping any?

>>ghopDapmey yotlh 'eltaHvIS lucholtaH jagh Dujmey.
>>QeymoHpu' SomrawDu'Daj.
>>cha' ghopDapmey joj DIngchu'pu' torgh Duj.
>>wa' ghopDap HeHDaq paw'pu' wa' thla'wI'Daj.
>>loghDaq 'uy' law' DI tIrmey ghomHa'lu'.
>>tlhuHqa'laH torgh, 'ach pay' tlha'wI'Daj cha'DIch Samta' nochmey.

>In the third line, I stumbled 
>on -chu'.  I usually trnaslate it as "clearly," as that seems to be the most 
>common usage.  for some reason, my 'instincts' tell me that this is an 
>incorrect usage of the suffix, but I can find no logic to back it up... it 
>certainly looks okay to me... Mark?  Qanqor?

You opened the door on the third line...

If the intent is "torgh's ship spun between two asteroids", remember you
need the "-Daq" suffix on "joj".  Just like "under the rock" is "nagh
bIngDaq", "between two asteroids" (as a prepositional phrase) is "cha'
ghopDap jojDaq" (plural suffix when there's a number is a little redundant,
but not wrong).  "DIngchu'" is grammatical, but I'm not sure of the
meaning.  "It spun awfully well"?  "It spun excellently"?  "It spun alot"
might go better as "DIngqu'".

>I would have said <tlha'wI'Daj wa'> for "one of his pursuers," although I am 
>not certain that is legal.  What you have is fine... just be aware that it 
>translates "his one pursuer," which makes the last line a bit confusing--I 
>thought there was *only* one pursuer, and now here is a second...

Also remember that "tlha'wI'Daj wa'" can also mean "His pursuer number 1".
The "one of" construction is something that's still a little fuzzy, last I
heard.

>>ghopDapmey yotlh veH leghlaHDI' pIvghor qIppu'.
>>SIbI' ra'wI'Daj toQDuj chuqDaq ghaHta'.
>>narghHa'pu' lutlha'pu'bogh novpu'.
>>nom verghpu' 'ej tep ngaSwI'mey woHpu'.
>>ra'wI'Daj pa'Daq nIteb bIH qengpu'.

>I am not certain <chuq> is properly used in the second line.  It looks funny 
>to me.  But that doesn't necessarily mean it was improperly used.  pabpo'pu'?

The line confuses me.  Oh, I see.  "suddenly he was in his commander's Bird
of Prey's range."  Toughie.  "chuq" used this way doesn't sound good to me
either.  It seems to means the abstract "distance", not the area of space
associated with something.  If there were a word for "area nearby" maybe...
Or avoid the construction altogether and try "SIbI' ra'wI'Daj toQDuj Sum"
(suddenly, he was near his commander's BoP).  Work?


>--HoD trI'Qal


~mark

Back to archive top level