tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 27 18:43:55 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Present tense of verbs
On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, Bryce Platt wrote:
> Hot diggety dawg, I finally have a reason to post here.
> OK, as a tlhIngan Hol neophyte, I have a few questions.
Welcome to the List!
> Present tense question.
> When I learned Spanish and French, we always translated something like
> 'Yo hablo' as 'I speak; I do speak; I am speaking'. So, in tlhIngan Hol, in
> translating (jIjatlh) may I translate it as (I speak; I am speaking; I do
> speak), or am I stuck with just (I speak)?
{jIjatlh} can mean: I speak, I am speaking, I do speak, I will speak, I
will be speaking, I spoke, I was speaking.
Sound confusing? It isn't really. {jIjalth} can mean: I speak, I am
speaking or I do speak. Additionally, unlike English, Spanish and French,
Klingon verbs do not indicate tense. A Klingon verb is always the same
whether it represents an action in the past, the present or the future.
The past, present of future is indicated by other words (usually adverbials).
For example:
wa'leS jIjatlh. Tomorrow, I will speak/I will be speaking.
DaHjaj jIjatlh. Today, I speak/I will be speaking.
wa'Hu' jIjatlh. Yesterday, I spoke/ I was speaking.
As you can see {jIjatlh} does not change. It is the same regardless of
whether it is being used in the past, the present or the future.
The verb {jalth} can also mean "say".
wa'leS bImuj jIjatlh. Tomorrow, I will say/I will be saying that you are
wrong. (Literally: Tomorrow, I say, "You are wrong".)
DaHjaj bImuj jIjatlh. Today, I say/I am saying that you are wrong.
wa'Hu' bImuj jIatlh. Yesterday, I said/I was saying that you were wrong.
Klingon verbs can indicate aspect (by using a Type 7 suffix). It is
important to note that aspect is not the same as tense. Aspect generally
indicates whether an action is completed, continuous or in progress and it
does not indicate whether the action occurs in the past, present or future.
> Verb suffixes (Type 5)
> Does (-lu') translate as (it)? Here I must admit to ignorance as to what is
> actually meant by 'indifinite subject'.
An "indefinite subject" just means the subject is not specifically stated.
{-lu'} is used when the subject of the verb is unknown, unspecified or
unimportant. When {-lu'} is used, the subject can be translated as
"something", "someone", "they", or "it". You often translate it by using
the passive voice.
{vIQoylu'} is commonly translated as "I am heard" or "I am being heard".
Who or what hears me is not stated. "Someone" or "something" hears me.
Since the subject is not known or not stated, it is "indefinite". The
focus of the sentence is on the object, "I".
Note that when you use {-lu'}, it uses verb prefixes differently than how
they are normally used.
vIrIQlu'. "I am injured" or "I am being injured." (also "Something
injures me"; "Someone injures me")
DarIQlu'. You are injured, you are being injured, etc.
rIQlu'. He/she/it is injured.
wIrIQlu'. We are injured.
borIQlu'. You all are injured.
lurIQlu'. They are injured.
> targhtlhuH
> Does this translate as (targh breath) ?
HIja'.
> TKD
> Are there any errors in TKD? Actually, I remember reading somewhere that
> Marc (or the typsetter ... don't you kinda feel for those poor guys?) did
> make a small error or two in TKD. Can I have a list of 'corrections' that I
> need to make in my copy of TKD? Are these mistakes called (Qaghmey)?
There are actually numerous mistakes in TKD. I don't have time to list
every mistake in the TKD today. I can present a list later when I have
the time or someone else can do it if they have already complied a list.
There are four kinds of mistakes in TKD:
1. Omitted words: For example, there are dozens of words missing on the
English-Klingon side of the dictionary.
2. Mismatched translations: When the K-E side does not match the E-K side.
E.g. Suffix (n) = mojaq (K-E side) / mojaQ (E-K side)
3. Typos: For example, "Qaw' destroy (n)" should be "Qaw' destroy (v)".
4. Anomalous translations: Some translations don't fit well with the
grammatical rules as presented and the experts have different opinions as to
why they are worded that way. Some of them have stirred up lengthy
debates. One example of an odd translation: {lujpu' jIH} & {lujpu'
jIH'e'} (I have failed) (the omission of the {jI-} prefix is not explained).
> Bryce
yoDtargh