tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 03 04:31:08 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] before now
{DaH} as a noun means “array, bank”. If you use {DaH} in a sentence in a position grammatically suggesting a noun, that’s what a native speaking Klingon would assume that you meant. chuvmey cannot be used as nouns.
{DaHjaj} is a noun. {DaH} is not.
I think your suggestion that {wej} implies intent is without evidence. The grammar has verb suffixes dedicated to implying intent. Why use chuvmey for that? I think that the examples offered you using {wej} are perfect.
You struggle to find a shade of meaning that would disqualify {wej} from conveying what you want. If someone wants to say, “I’ve never finished a manuscript before,” to highlight the fact that they have just now finished one for the first time, just say:
{wa’Hu’ ghItlh vIqonpu’be’. DaHjaj vIqonta’!}
It’s common practice to use more than one sentence in Klingon to express things for which English would use one longer, more complex sentence. Meanwhile, in this example, even English is clearer with more than one sentence. “I’ve finished this manuscript today. I’ve never done this before.” In Klingon, we’d just use different time stamps to refer to times when different statements are accurate.
lojmIt tI’wI’ nuv ‘utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably
On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:36 AM, De'vID <[email protected]> wrote:
> De'vID:
>>>>> How would you express "before now"? "I haven't done
>>>>> this (e.g., written a manuscript) before now."
>>>>>
>>>>> {ret not ghItlh vIqon}? Can {ret} be used by itself as
>>>>> a time stamp, and can it precede an adverbial {not}?
>
> SuStel:
>>>> wej vIta'pu'.
>>>> wej ghItlh vIqonpu'
>
> It doesn't quite have the same sense or emphasis, though. {wej} "not
> yet" connotes a sense of anticipation that "not before now" does not.
>
> "I haven't yet done it" suggests that the speaker intends to do it,
> but hasn't yet. But "I haven't done it before now" implies nothing
> either way - perhaps the speaker intends to do it, but perhaps not.
>
> Actually, the sentence I'm translating is something like this (the
> original is not in English): "I haven't written on this topic before
> now, but now I have for the first time." (The implication is that the
> speaker had previously only verbally lectured on the topic, and is
> putting his lessons into writing for the first time, which the reader
> is now holding in his/her hands.)
>
> So at some prior point in time (before the completion of the book),
> the speaker had never written on the topic. But at the moment, as the
> reader is holding the book, the speaker (writer) obviously has
> completed this task.
>
> {wej ghItlh vIqonpu'} wouldn't be true in this case. It was true just
> prior (i.e., "before now") to the completion of the book which the
> reader is holding.
>
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh:
>>> DaH ghItlh vIqonpu'be'.
>>> I am not at the time of speaking in the state of having
>>> completed writing a manuscript. Since the time stamp is
>>> "now", the perfective covers any past events.
>> ...
>>> Given the font change and header information, I skipped right
>>> past David Trimboli's excellent recommendation of using
>>> {wej}. It's spot on.
>
> {DaH ghItlh vIqonpu'be'} wouldn't work for my situation either. The
> author has in fact finished the book. But moments prior to finishing
> the book, he had never written (in the sense of having completed a
> piece of writing which is then made public) on the topic.
>
> (I suppose there is a bit of literary flourish as he's written as if
> the entire book was written in one continuous sitting or indivisible
> event, so that prior to beginning it he had never written on the topic
> before, and just after finishing it, he has.)
>
> DloraH:
>> wej does work as long as the context clears the ambiguity.
>> Sally, "I wrote a book."
>> Jack, "I wrote four books."
>> Bob, ... well, is Bob saying that he has not yet written his book, or did he write three?
>> Yes, sometimes context is enough to determine which is ment.
>> Using the negated perfective in the present helps if Bob's quote above could be taken either way.
>
> I think maybe you dropped Bob's quote, unless I'm not understanding
> what Bob said?
>
> --
> De'vID
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol