tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 31 12:07:54 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

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Rhodes <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 1997 6:42 PM
Subject: Translation of English Past and Present Perfect Tenses in Klingon

>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.

Understand that this advice is almost given exclusively to beginners, to
help them see the difference between tense and aspect.  When translating
Klingon aspect, I frequently change it to tense in English.  Sometimes the
English doesn't flow well with aspect.

>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.

I don't see these passages as being an exhaustive list of what the Type 7
suffixes are used for or should be translated as.  I think Okrand meant that
when you see a verb with no aspect marker and no context, it will be
translated into English present tense.  After all, if you don't have
context, why play between three tenses?

>(TKD, p. 41)
>Note that of the three examples given, two are English past tense (I
wanted,
>I told), not perfect.

Okrand first says that verbs with {-pu'} are often translated with English
present perfect, and then two of his three examples do NOT use present
perfect, but past.  That tells me that Okrand is more concerned with flowing
translations than technical accuracy.  The whole section is riddled with
"often"s and "usually"s.

>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.

Replace "can be" with "often are," and you're on the right track.


>-pu� translated as a simple past: (30 examples)
>-pu� translated as present perfect: (20 examples)
>-pu� translated as a past participle: (2 examples)
>-ta� translated as present perfect: (3 examples)
>rIntaH translated as present perfect: (2 examples)
>No aspect marker translated as present perfect:

[cut two examples]

>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.

Virtually all of your examples are sentences without context, so why WOULD
Okrand choose the past tense for them?

>when translating an English past tense into Klingon,
>the �pu� or �ta� aspect marker should be used.

I just plain disagree.

>There is no justification in
>the published books on Klingon for translating an English past tense into
>Klingon without using �pu� or �ta�.

How about {wa'Hu' jIghung} "Yesterday, I was hungry." (Conversational
Klingon)

wa'Hu' jIghung
Yesterday I was hungry.

DaHjaj jI'oj
Today I am thirsty.

wa'leS jIDoy'
Tomorrow I'll be tired.

I think you are looking into Okrand's translations much too deeply.  He
often uses past tense when translating a Klingon perfective because it
*sounds* better in English that way, and if you assume that the perfective
word takes place in the present, there's no difference in meaning.

SuStel
Stardate 97999.1

Back to archive top level