tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 27 15:32:25 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

KLBC: Re: *romangan*Daq mu'thleghmey val


>>*romangan*Daq mu'tlheghmey val puS vImugh
>>vIneHpu'.  jiHvaD yIja' jIQaghchugh.  Satlho'neS.
>
>Hmm.. I can't quite tell if you are trying to use the verb suffix {-pu'}
>correctly.  It looks like you intend for it to indicate simple past tense,
>but that's not what it means.  Klingon has no "tense" as such; future, past,
>and present are distinguished not by grammar but by context and time words
>such as "ten o'clock", "yesterday", and "next year."  What Klingon *does*
>have is "aspect", describing whether an action is complete, ongoing, done
>(as an intentional act), and so on.  {vIneHpu'} means "I had wanted" and
>it implies that the wanting was finished when the other events in the
>sentence took place.  Or it might mean that the wanting *will be* finished
>when the other events *take* place.  If you already understood this and you
>indeed meant to use the perfective, I apologize for bending your ear, but
>I think it's an important enough point that I will accept the possibility
>that I am annoying you against the chance that I'm truly helping you.

Although I am new to Klingon, I have considerable experience (over 25 years)
with Biblical Hebrew, which also uses aspect rather than tense with its
verbs.   Nevertheless, since an English simple past almost always describes
something that is completed, it seems to me that the use of the perfective
suffix -pu' is appropriate.  Okrand's own examples in TKD 4.2.7, p. 41
support this:

    vIneHpu'- I wanted them. 
    qaja'pu' - I told you.

Okrand also states that "Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are translated by the
English simple present tense," (TKD 4.2.7, p. 40) but that "when context is
appropriate, verbs without a Type 7 suffix may be translated by the English
future tense." (TKD 4.2.7, 0. 40)  Nowhere does he state that it is
appropriate to translate verbs with no Type 7 suffix as past tense.

>
>However, there's another problem with this usage.  The Klingon Dictionary
>makes it quite clear (if you look closely) that in two-verb sentences such
>as your {...vImugh vIneHpu'}, the second verb never takes a type 7 (aspect)
>suffix like {-pu'}.  See section 6.2.5, about a third of the way down page
>66 at the end of the long paragraph.

bIlighchu'!  In retrospect, I believe I should have said: *romangan*Daq
mu'tlheghmey val puS vImughpu' vIneH.  This would agree with the example in
TKD 6.2.5, p.67: qama'pu' vIjonta' vIneH. - I wanted to capture prisoners. 

>
>>jatlhpu' *Terence*:
>
>The use of {-pu'} is dubious here as well.
>

See my comments above.


>>qaSbe' Dochmey batlh, Qob tu'be'lu'chugh.
>
>"Honor of things does not happen if one does not find danger."
>I'm not familiar with the quote, so I'm not sure if this is right.
>I think {Dochmey batlh} is in the wrong order; is it supposed to
>be "things of honor"?  This sentiment can probably be expressed
>with {Qob tu'be'lu'chugh batlh tu'be'lu'}.  "If there is no danger,
>there is no honor."  Putting the {-chugh} phrase first is merely
>a stylistic choice, but it is the most common usage here.

You are right.  I meant batlh Dochmey - things of honor

>>jatlhpu' *Publius Syrus*:  loQ bIQagh, DaSovbe'bogh DaSovchu'.
>
>"You err slightly, you clearly know what you do not know."  While
>English needs the pronoun "what", Klingon instead has a verb suffix;
>you have removed the pronoun, leaving the head noun of the relative
>clause unspecified.  It took me a few extra moments to figure out
>what the object of {DaSovchu'} was supposed to be, since it isn't
>written down anywhere.  This might not actually be ungrammatical,
>but it would certainly be easier to read if you had put something
>concrete as the object.
>

I left off a final suffix when I typed this, which probably added to the
confusion.  It should have been: 

        loQ bIQagh, DaSovbe'bogh DaSovchu'chugh.
        You will err only a little if you know what you do not know.

For clarity, would adding Dochmey as a head noun help?  The sentence would
then read: loQ bIQagh, Dochmey DaSovbe'bogh DaSovchu'chugh.

>Well done.  You already have a good handle on the basic grammar.
>I hope to see more from you soon -- preferably your own words, and
>not those of millenium-dead statesmen of a fallen empire. :-)
>
>-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>
Here I take exception.  Both the Bible and the works of Shakespeare are
being translated by members of the KLI.  A person millenia-dead can still
have something to say to us.  I feel like the Roman Empire is an apt model
to look at in comparison to the Klingon Empire.  Many of the positive traits
and values of Rome can also be found among the Klingons.  A prime example is
the emphasis on honor (Latin dignitas).

I do have a couple of other questions.  In the pIqaD writing system, is
there any marks of punctuation?  I have been working on a TrueType font of
pIqaD and would like to include in it the appropriate symbols for a period,
comma, question mark, exclamation point, colon, etc.  Sov'a' vay'?

Qapla'

Mike

Back to archive top level