tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 11 16:05:23 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

KLBC: Tense and Aspect

For Beginners:

While the momentum is up, I'll try another lesson. This isn't a
new trend. My momentum is about to end for a while...

Tense and Aspect:

In English, we indicate the time setting of a verb with
suffixes or irregular forms that form "tense":

Present: I go.
Past: I went.
Future: I will go.

[Okay, so we use a helping word for Future.]

Klingon doesn't do that. Instead, the time setting is done by
helping words:

Present: DaH jIjaH.
Past: wa'Hu' jIjaH.
Future: tugh jIjaH.

This may seem strange, but English gets at least as strange.
Consider the way that Klingon uses the suffix {-chugh} while
English uses the helping word "if". Different languages simply
use different devices toward the same end. There is no suffix
that conveys in English the function of the helping word "if".
Similarly, there is no suffix in Klingon that conveys the sense
of present, past or future tense.

This throws a lot of beginners. They want tense so badly to be
part of the verb that they see the suffixes {-pu'}, {-ta'},
{-lI'} and {-taH} and try to make them function as tense.
Meanwhile, verbs with each of these suffixes can still be
present, past or future, depending upon the helping words that
actually establish the time setting.

Instead, these Type 7 suffixes refer to "aspect", or degree of
completion of the action of the verb. A verb with {-lI'} tends
to be goal oriented. The action of the verb has begun before
the time setting of the sentence which contains it, and there
is a clear expectation that this action will achieve some
change of state and then the action will cease.

As an example, if I am walking past you and you ask me where I
am going, I could logically reply:

juH vIghoSlI'.

Note here that {ghoS} is a little unusual, in that it is a
transitive verb whose object is the destination of the travel,
or the path being travelled or something which is associated
with the path being travelled. Given that, you can tell that
before you asked me where I was going, I was already underway.
I have not stopped to talk to you. I am still progressing
toward my goal, and once I get there, I will stop travelling.

So, the temptation is to consider the suffix {-lI'} to be
associated with the "present" tense. So, what if I were
visiting you from afar and had spent the entire previous day in
transit and in a feeble attempt at Human small talk, you ask me
what I was doing yesterday, I could answer:

naDev vIghoSlI'.

Note that there is no time setting in this sentence. It does
not need one because that was set in your question. You asked
me what I was doing YESTERDAY, so my answer is understood to be
in the past tense. Yesterday, my travels were in progress
toward coming HERE, and now that I'm here, I'm not travelling
anymore. So where's dinner?

Similarly, if you asked what I intend to do tomorrow, I can say:

juH vIghoSlI'.

Note that this is exactly the same sentence I used to respond
to your question which was set in the present tense. The tense
is different because the time setting of the sentence is
different because our conversation contained the context that
determined tense.  The tense has changed. The aspect has not.

{taH} is very similar to {-lI'} except that it does not make
any reference to any intended or implied change of state. It
can mean that the action of the verb is perpetual, but without
a helping word like {reH}, this is not a dependable
presumption. What you really mean is that the action of the
verb began before the time setting of the sentence which
contains it and it will continue for some unspecified duration
with no particular reference to the presence or absence of any
change of state.

jIlengtaH.

Maybe I'll settle down someday, but for now, jIlengtaH.

Going back to our conversation, now that I am visiting you from
afar, if, in another feeble attempt at small talk, you asked me
if I was travelling just to see you, or if I had some other
destination in mind, I could say:

naDev vIghoSta'.

This is not past tense. This is actually present tense. You
asked me about my current state. Right now, I am in the state
of having accomplished travelling to here. This would usually
be translated as, "I have come here," which is quite different
from "I came here," which is past tense. In background, you can
know that I have done this on purpose, though there is no way
to convey this in English without either making a somewhat
awkward construction or overemphasizing the intentionality.
This is a subtle shade of meaning that Klingon carries better
than English.

Note that the difference between {-ta'} and {-pu'} is similar
(but not identical) to the difference between {-lI'} and {taH}.
{-lI'} does not necessarily carry the same degree of a sense of
"intent" as {-ta'}, but it tends to. There is evidence in the
text of TKD that these four suffixes were built as a set with
the original intent for them to be matched in this way, though
in actual usage, the pairs have evolved to new relationships.

For this reason, it is just as accurate for me to say:

naDev vIghoSpu'.

This simply makes no reference to any intent. Maybe I did it on
purpose. Maybe I was just walking until I got tired or hungry
and I stopped and this happened to be the place.

This also is not past tense. The time setting is the present.
"I have come here." Don't confuse this with "I came here,"
which really IS past tense.

If you ask me about yesterday, I could answer:

juHvo' jImejta'.

or

juHvo' jImejpu'.

"I had departed from home."

And since you have not offered me food yet and the conversation
is boring:

tugh jImejta'.

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Back to archive top level