tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 02 17:39:59 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Translation of English Past and Present Perfect Tenses in Klingon

On Thu, 1 Jan 1998 07:50:58 -0800 (PST) Michael Rhodes 
<[email protected]> wrote:

[Huge, well argued post snipped. I'm just too tired to respond 
to the details.]

> In summary.  I have not and do not maintain that -pu' indicates past tense.
> It indicates a perfective aspect, which implies that the verbal action is
> completed.  But completed action is best translated into English by either a
> simple past or a present perfect.

This is true, so long as the time stamp of the sentence is the 
same as the time that the sentence is spoken. In fact, for the 
vast majority of the simple, context free examples Okrand gives 
us in canon, this is the case.

Meanwhile, if you actually pay attention to the description in 
TKD and if you've ever heard Okrand speak about the language and 
aspect, you'll know that all his references to context give you 
the tense of the sentence to which aspect is added or not. So, 
if the tense is present and aspect is added, the meaning is 
present perfect, which might be loosely translated as simple 
past just like you suggest.

Meanwhile, if the tense is past, then {-pu'} makes it past 
perfect and nothing else. If it lacks {-pu'} then it is simple 
past (and it doesn't have to be clipped to be simple past 
without {-pu'}. If the time stamp is future, then {-pu'} makes 
it future perfect, which I suppose by your logic could be 
translated as present, if you really wanted to. No aspect marker 
would indicate simple future.

That's the part you don't seem to acknowledge while you argue 
your point. You have a valid point that in loose translation, 
present perfect can be translated as simple past. Sometimes it 
sounds more natural that way. Most canon examples fall in this 
category. Meanwhile, your theory leaves no room for future or 
past tense, which do exist in Klingon, though it is indicated 
by the time stamp, not by any affix.

If you can expand your theory a bit to include these essential 
parts of Klingon grammar in terms of dealing with the mixture of 
tense and aspect, then you'll likely have a more interesting 
argument and perhaps you'll get farther with it.
 
> Conversely, a simple past or a present perfect in English nearly always
> implies that the action is completed and can best be translated by using
> the -pu' aspect marker.  These conclusions are supported overwhelmingly by
> the examples in the works of Marc Okrand, which are the only canonical
> evidence that is valid.

So, stop attaching the completion of the action to "now" 
experienced by the listener and attach it to the time setting of 
the sentence, which may be past or future, and you may have a 
better understanding of the grammar than you seem to have now.

> mIHayl

charghwI'

Back to archive top level