tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 14 08:01:35 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -pu'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -pu'
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:01:32 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
Pardon me for jumping in here, but I think this is something I
can explain fairly well.
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 23:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Anthony Appleyard
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Please what <is> the correct use of the verb suffix {X-pu'}? TKD says only
> that it means that the action X is complete. But the pabpo' told me off for
> using -pu' repeatedly for continuous narration of past events (when I was
> describing a scuba diving holiday in the Red Sea), although all the events
> that I referred to were completed.
The missing element here is that in Klingon, instead of tense,
we have what is called a "time stamp". Okrand gave good examples
on the audio tapes when he said something like:
wa'Hu' jI'oj.
DaHjaj jIghung.
wa'leS jIDoy'.
Note that he didn't use {-pu'} there at all. He gave you a time
reference at the beginning of the sentence. That tells you the
time the action took place. Yesterday, I was thirsty. Today, I
am hungry. Tomorrow, I will be tired.
Add to this that a time stamp can carry beyond the boundaries of
a sentence, or even a paragraph. A time stamp given once gives
you the tense of every statement until you get a new time stamp.
Meanwhile, you can make single-verb references to different
degrees of completion of action at the moment of the time stamp.
I'll expand on the previous examples to make my case:
wa'Hu' jI'oj. qaStaHvIS wej jaj jItlhutlhpu'be', 'ach bIQ
vItu'ta'DI' jI'ojbe'choH. bIQmo' jISeyqu' 'ej jIlIjmo' jISopbe'.
Yesterday, I was thirsty. [I don't need {-pu'} because the time
stamp tells me this happened yesterday. At the time of the time
stamp, the action was not completed.] For three days, I had not
drunk, but when I found water, I became not thirsty. [The {-pu'}
tells me that at the time stamp of {wa'Hu'} the action of not
drinking for three days was complete. The three days were not
ahead of me. They were behind me. "When I found water"
essentially becomes a new time stamp. Since it doesn't really
give you a time you can see on a watch or calendar, it is likely
related to the existing time stamp. Here, I'd naturally think it
was a specific time during yesterday, and there's nothing here
indicating otherwise.] I became so excited about the water that
I forgot to eat. [In English, all this is past tense because we
relate time to the current time of the speaker. In Klingon, it
is all what you might consider present tense because it happens
at the time stamp of the story. In truth, Klingon has no tense.
Aspect describes the verb's degree of completion at the time of
the time stamp.
DaHjaj jIghung. Soj vIlegh. loQ Hop, 'ach vIghoSlI'. jIghunglI'.
tugh jISop. bIQ vISuqta'meH wa'vatlh qelI'qam vIyItta'. Soj
vISuqmeH wa'maH vagh qelI'qam vIyItnIS.
Today, I am hungry. I see food. It is a little far away, but I
am approaching it. I am hungry, but I can foresee being fed.
Soon, I will eat. I had walked a hundred qelI'qammey to get
water. [The time stamp is today, and today, I have finished
walking the hundred qelI'qammey.] I must walk fifteen
qelI'qammey to get food.
wa'leS jIDoy'. qay'be'. jIQonglaH.
Tomorrow, I will be tired. No problem. I will be able to sleep
then.
> Is it correct to use X-pu' wherever an English speaker would use the perfect
> tense (or its combined forms such as pluperfect and future-perfect)?
Well, here's the confusion. "Perfect" is not a tense. It is an
aspect. There is "past perfect" and "present perfect" and
"future perfect", but there is no "perfect" tense. See? Klingon
doesn't have tense, but it does have aspect.
> My current instincts when narrating past events are to use one -pu' and then
> plain verbs, and to use another -pu' only where I jump back in time. Is that
> correct usage?
Almost. If you narrate past events, give a past time stamp and
no aspect marker at all. Use {-pu'} only when you want to speak
of an event or action that had already occurred at the moment of
the time stamp.
English attaches a sense of time to the moment the speaker is
talking. Klingon ignores that and instead establishes a time
anchor with the time stamp and relates time to that anchor, not
to the "present" time of the speaker.
Does this help?
charghwI'