tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 29 12:27:09 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Re: *romangan*Daq mu'thleghmey val
>Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 15:33:58 -0800
>From: [email protected] (Michael Rhodes)
>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:
I've also been studying Biblical Hebrew for a similar length of time, and
it's not all that comparable. The aspectual aspects (eep!) of Biblical
Hebrew are not all that pure; there is a great deal of tense-usage in
Biblical Hebrew. The imperfective is fairly commonly used for future, and
the reversed imperfective for past. The perfective also shows up as simple
past now and then... It's not clearcut.
> 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.
CK tape: "wa'Hu' jI'oj"/"yesterday I was thirsty."
It seems to me that when you see "-pu'" or "-ta'", your best bet is to
think in terms of perfect aspect (e.g. English tenses using "have":
qama'pu' vIjonta' vIneH: I want to HAVE CAUGHT prisoners. vIleghpu': I
have seen him.) Perfective with respect to the implied time.
~mark