tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 30 20:42:31 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Translation of English Past and Present Perfect Tenses in Klingon



On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 15:44:49 -0800 (PST) Michael Rhodes 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> James Coupe said:
> 
> >valqu'ba' loDnI'lIj. All this is fine with one little comment.
> >{-pu'} does not mean past tense. It means perfective aspect.
> >Your English translation says, "...my brother gave me...".
> >That's simple past tense. Klingon doesn't have tense, so past
> >tense is simply figured out from context. You set the time
> >context with {DaHjaj} and considering how well you've done up to
> >this point, we'd have to assume it was earlier today that you
> >got your TKD.
> 
> On this list I have seen this idea expressed many times, namely that �pu�
> should only be translated by an English perfect tense, not an English past
> tense, and that an English past tense should not have �pu� but should be
> figured out from context.  This, however, does not seem to agree with the
> usage in all of Marc Okrand�s published books on Klingon.

At one of the qep'a' sessions in Philadelphia, Okrand explained 
about perfective vs. past tense, and then as the focus was 
moving on to something else, he muttered to one side, "Of course 
at one time, {-pu'} WAS past tense..." It was clear that when he 
was first developing the language, it was past tense and at some 
point, he decided to make it perfective instead.

We don't know if it was one of those adjustments because of a 
change in a subtitle, or some other backfit, or if he later 
decided it would be more interesting that way. It doesn't 
matter. It means perfective, not past tense, even if some 
examples seem otherwise.

> First a look at relevant passages from TKD.
> 
> �The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not
> completed and is not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things
> indicated by the Type 7 suffixes).  Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are
> translated by the English simple present tense.� (TKD p. 40)
> 
> Note that verbs with no Type 7 suffix are to be translated by English
> present tense.  No mention is made of past tense.
> 
> �When the context is appropriate, verbs without a Type 7 suffix may be
> translated by the English future tense.� (TKD p. 40)
> 
> Thus an English future tense is appropriate if context implies it.
> 
> �-pu� perfective  This suffix indicates that an action is completed.  It is
> often translated by the English present perfect (have done something).
> Daleghpu� you have seen it (legh see)
> vIneHpu� I wanted them (neH want)
> qaja�pu� I told you (ja� tell)�
> (TKD, p. 41)
> 
> Note that of the three examples given, two are English past tense (I wanted,
> I told), not perfect.

They may be leftovers from when it WAS used for past tense. It 
doesn't matter. The directions have consistently told us that it 
is perfective. In conversations with him, he has maintained this 
as well. There are errors in canon. We have to sift out that 
which is an error vs. that which teaches us.

In this case, you can interpret that {-pu'} either means 
perfective, like he tells us, or that it means both perfective 
and past tense, which is NOT what he tells us and leaves us with 
a more chaotic language. This is not what we seek, so we ignore 
the examples that don't fit his descriptions.
> 
> For the �ta� suffix, TKD says:
> 
> �-ta� accomplished, done
> 
> This suffix is similar to -pu�, but it is used when an activity was
> deliberately undertake, the implication being that someone set out to do
> something and in fact did it.  English translations seldom reveal the
> distinction.
> VISuqta� - I have acquired it.
> luHoHta� - They have killed him/her. (TKD p. 41)
> 
> Thus �pu� and �ta� indicate a completed action, which according to the
> examples can be translated by either an English past or an English present
> perfect tense.  This is common in many languages.  In Latin for example
> �vidi� can mean either �I saw� or �I have seen.�  So too in German, �Ich
> habe ihn gesehen� can be translated either �I saw him� or �I have seen him�
> depending on context.

Nope. That doesn't fit the majority of canon from the audio 
tapes or from the other more recent books. In particular, he 
illustrates tense on Conversational Klingon with:

wa'Hu' jIghung. Yesterday I was hungry.
DaHjaj jI'oj. Today, I am thirsty.
wa'leS jIDoy'. Tomorrow, I will be tired.

The first example doesn't fit your general rule at all.
 
> I have collected all the examples I could find of Klingon sentences
> translated by an English simple past or present perfect tense found in TKD,
> TKW, and KGT.  They are:
> 
> -pu� translated as a simple past: (30 examples)
> 
> yaS vImojpu� - I became an officer (TKD p. 22)
> yaS Dimojpu� - We became officers (TKD p. 22)
> De��e� vItlhanpnISpu� - I needed to get the INFORMATION (TKD p. 29)
> De� vItlhanISpu� - I needed to get the information
> vIneHpu� I wanted them (neH want) (TKD p. 41)
> qaja�pu� I told you (ja� tell) (TKD p. 41)
> Qaw��eghpu� - he/she destroyed himself/herself (TKD p.45 )
> vItlhapnISpu� - I needed to take him/her (TKD p. 45)
> HeghqangmoHlu�pu� - it made him/her willing to die (TKD p. 45 )
> qaleghpu� je - I also saw you, I saw you too. (TKD p. 55)
> bong yaS vIHoHpu� - I accidentally killed the officer (TKD p. 56)
> qama� vIqIppu� neH - I merely hit the prisoner. (TKD p. 56)
> pa�Daq yas vIleghpu� - I saw the officer in the room. (TKD p. 60)
> SutlhtaHvIS chaH DIHIvpu� or DIHIvpu� SutlhtaHvIS chaH - While they were
> negotiating we attacked them. (TKD p. 63)
> qIppu�bogh yaS - officer who hit him/her (TKD p. 63)
> yaS qIppu�bogh - officer whom he/she hit (TKD p. 63)
> qIppu�bogh yaS vIlegh - I see the officer who hit him/her (TKD p. 64)
> mulegh qIppu�bogh yaS - The officer who hit him/her sees me. (TKD p. 64)
> yaS qIppu� �e� vIlegh - I saw him/her hit the officers. (TKD p. 66)
>  �Note that the verb in the second sentence, vIlegh - I see it, is neutral
> as to time.  The past tense of the translation (I saw . . .) comes from the
> verb in the first sentence, qIppu� he/she hit him/her (-pu� perfective).
> (TKD p. 66)

As numerous as these examples are, they are from the oldest 
canon and were written during a span of time during which Okrand 
changed from using {-pu'} as simple past to using it as 
perfective, regardless of tense. If you get the books "The 
Klingon Way" and "Klingon for the Galactic Traveler" and the 
audio tapes "Conversational Klingon" and "Power Klingon", you'll 
find canon a bit more consistent in this useage.
 
> qaja�pu� HIqaghQo� or HIqaghQo� qaja�pu� - I told you not to interrupt me.
> �This is literally I told you, �Dont� Interrupt me!� or �Don�t interrupt me!
> � I told you. . . . An aspect marker (her, -pu� perfective) may always be
> attached to the verb of saying, regardless of whether it is the first of the
> second verb. (TKD p. 67)
> 
> ghorgh Haw�pu� yaS - When did the officer flee? (TKD p. 70)
> qatlh Haw�pu� yaS - Why did the officer flee? (TKD p. 70)
> chay� Haw�pu� yaS - How did the officer flee? (TKD p. 70)
> Haw�pu� yaS �ar - How many officers fled? (TKD p. 70)
> vIta�pu�be� - I didn�t do it. (TKD p. 172)
> pa� jiHpu�be� - I wasn�t there. (TKD p. 172)
> Heghpu�mo� yaS - because the officer died. (TKD p. 175)
> DaHjaj nom Soppu� - Today they ate quickly (TKD p. 179)
> yaSvaD taj nobpu� qama� - The prisoner gave the officer the knife. (TKD p.
> 180)
> QI�tomerDaq Heghpu� Hoch. - No one survived Khitomer. (literally �Everyone
> died at Khitomer.) (TKW, p. 99)

You can tell this is far from a literal translation. Literally, 
"At Khitomer, everyone has died." That can be loosely translated 
as "No one survived Khitomer."
 
> -pu� translated as present perfect: (20 examples)
> 
> lujpu� jIH�e� - It is I who has failed (TKD p. 29)
> lujpu� jiH - I have failed (TKD p. 29) (How is this different from vIlujpu�
> ?)
> Daleghpu� you have seen it (legh see) (TKD p. 41)
> luHoHpu� - they have killed him/her. (TKD p. 41)
> nuHotlhpu��a� - have they scanned us? (TKD p. 44)
> vaj Daleghpu� - Then you have seen it. (TKD p. 56)
> tlhaqwIj chu�Ha�lu�pu� - My chronometer has stopped (TKD p. 170)
> not vIleghpu� - I�ve never seen him before (TKD p. 172)
> mIch �elpu� jay� - They�ve entered the #$%@ sector! (TKD p. 178)
> bIHeghvIpchugh bIHeghpu� - If you are afraid to die, you have already died.
> (TKW, p. 72)
> qarDaSnganpu� HIvpu� tlhInganpu� qar�a�?  The Klingons have attacked the
> Cardassians, right? (KGT, p. 34)
> Duj So�lu�pu�.  The ship is cloaked. (Literally, �Someone has cloaked the
> ship.�) (KGT, p. 55) 

Well, you can literally translate {-lu'} using the passive voice.

> Soj vutlu�pu�bogh.  Food that someone has prepared. (KGT, p. 84)
> Soj raghmoHlu�pu�.  Someone has caused the food to decay. (KGT, p. 84)
> Hoch jaghpu�Daj HoHpu�.  He has killed all his enemies. (KGT, p. 107)
> jIbachHa�pu�.  I have made a mistake. (Literally, �I have mis-shot.) (KGT,
> p. 145)
> jIQaghpu�.  I have made a mistake. (KGT, p. 145)
> Heghpu� SuvwI�.  The warrior has died. (KGT, p. 163)
> bIvonlu�pu�.  You have failed utterly. (Literally, �You have been trapped.�)
> (KGT, p. 166-67)
> vIlajpu�.  I have accepted it. (KGT, p. 184)

Note how many more newer examples use this as perfective.
 
> -pu� translated as a past participle: (2 examples)
> 
> raghpu�bogh Soj.  Decayed food.  (Food that has decayed.) (KGT, p. 91)
> pIpyuS pach HaHlu�pu�bogh.  Marinated pipius claw.  (Pipius claw which has
> been marinated.) (KGT, p. 94)
> 
> -ta� translated as present perfect: (3 examples)
> 
> VISuqta� - I have acquired it. (TKD p. 41)
> luHoHta� - They have killed him/her. (TKD p. 41)
> qama�pu� vIjonta� vIneH - I wanted to capture prisoners. . . . Note once
> again that the aspect marker (in this case, -ta� accomplished) goes with the
> first verb only; the second verb, vIneH I want it, is neutral as to time.
> The past tense of the translation (I wanted . . .) comes from the aspect
> marker on the first verb. (TKD p. 67)

Also note the rule about Sentence As Object disallowing the use 
of aspect on the second verb. A lot of people miss that. It is a 
common error in Klingon grammar.
 
> rIntaH translated as present perfect: (2 examples)
> 
> luHoH rIntaH - They have killed him/her. (TKD p. 41)
> vIje� rIntaH - I have purchased it. (TKD p. 41)

{rIntaH} is a special case used exactly once in any canon 
outside of TKD. It was used in ST3 in order to explain why 
Valkris's lips were still moving after she had finished saying 
what the subtitle said she was saying. In truth, the scene was 
shot with her speaking English and Okrand had to make up stuff 
for her to dub in later, so he made up the whole {rIntaH} stuff 
to give her two more syllables for that scene.

I NEVER use {rIntaH}. I wince whenever I see it used.
 
> No aspect marker translated as present perfect:
> 
> nuQaw�qu�be - they have not finished us off. (TKD p. 48) (literally �they do
> not DESTROY us.�)

Or more appropriately, "They did not destroy us." Simple past 
slipped into perfective while loosely translating it, changing 
the verb.

> narghbe�chugh SuvwI� qa� TaH may� - If a warrior�s spirit has not escaped,
> the battle is still going on. (TKW, p. 147) (literally �If a warrior�s
> spirit does not escape, the battle continues.�)

This makes perfect sense in the literal translation, but it 
sounds awkward to English ears, so Okrand loosens up the 
translation in order to make it sound more natural.
 
It helps to note whether you or Okrand are offering the literal 
translation.

> Both of these examples really refer to the present and not the past as the
> literal translation shows.
> 
> There is thus not a single example of a verb without �pu� or �ta� translated
> as an English past tense, and there are at least 30 examples of �pu�
> translated with the English simple past.

Note the example given in Conversational Klingon above. You've 
researched well, but the simple truth is, Okrand has explained 
the grammar on this clearly in TKD, even if his examples don't 
consistently fit the descriptions, and in person he has clearly 
described how this works.
 
> It seems clear to me that Marc Okrand intended that although the Klingon
> verb uses aspect rather than tense, for all practical purposes, the �pu�
> and �ta� aspect markers can in nearly every case be translated into English
> as either a simple past or present perfect, as his own translation clearly
> show.  

Your confidence is noted, but you are simply wrong.

> And conversely, when translating an English past tense into Klingon,
> the �pu� or �ta� aspect marker should be used.  There is no justification in
> the published books on Klingon for translating an English past tense into
> Klingon without using �pu� or �ta�.

Except for Conversational Klingon and numerous personal 
testimonies, along with the grammatical explanation in TKD. 
These may be less numerous than your citations, but they are 
simply right and your conclusion is not.
 
> I welcome comments,

Good.
 
> mIHayl

charghwI'


Back to archive top level