tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 12 01:35:58 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC: Questions with -'e'-



At 04:57 97-10-11 -0700, Dawut wrote:
}On  Wed, Oct. 08 1997, Qov wrote:
}>97-10-07, Dawut wrote:
}
}>> Klingon1: Heghpu' yaS jatlhta' HoD. "The captain said that the 
}>> officer died." 
}>> Klingon2: ghorgh 'e' DaQoypu' "When did you hear that?"
}>
}>You don't actually need 
}>any of the aspect suffixes you have used in these sentences, anyway.
}>"The captain had said that the officer had died," you don't really 
}>mean that, do you?
}
}Were you referring to the TYPE 7 suffix {-ta}"accomplished" in the first 
}sentence, or the TYPE 7 suffix {-pu'} "perfective" in the second 
}sentence, or both?  The first sentence was intended to convey the idea 
}that the captain had finished saying (not presently in the act of 
}speaking it) that the officer died (had completed the dying process and 
}therefore spoken of as an incident occuring in the past).  

Uh uh uh uh.  Type seven suffixes do NOT denote tense. If something took
place in the past and it is important that the reader understand it took
place in the past, say when it happened.  The action with a {-pu'} on it
took place no longer ago than the one without.  Klingon simply does not have
past tense.  Deal.

{Heghpu' yaS}  "The officer will have died" "The officer has died" "The
officer had died"
{Hegh yaS} "The officer died"  "The officer dies "The officer will die."

{wa'leS jatlhta' HoD Heghpu' yaS}  - "Tomorrow the captain will have said
that the officer had died."

Tense (which Klingon doesn't have) refers to the completion or ongoingness
of an action at the time the sentence is told.  Aspect refers to the
completion or ongoingness in the context of the sentence.

{cha'nem mu'tlheghvam lIjlu'pu'}  - "Two hundred years from now, this
sentence will have been forgotten."

{ghorgh tujchoHpu' bIQ?} - "When will the water be hot?"

{Duj DaHotlhDI' jabbI'ID labpu''a' jagh?} - "When you scanned the ship had
the enemy [already] sent a transmission?"
{Duj DaHotlhDI' jabbI'ID lab'a' jagh?} - "When you scanned the ship did the
enemy send a transmisson?"
{Duj DaHotlhDI' jabbI'ID lablI''a' jagh?} - "When you scanned the ship was
the enemy sending a transmission?"

Note that these could all be translated in the future as well, e.g. "When
you scan the ship will the enemy be transmitting?" It's just more logical
that you would ask about past enemy actions.

This usage is muddied by the fact that many of the examples throughout TKD
use {-pu'} as if it WERE past tense.  I'm told that originaly {-pu'} was
going to be a past tense marker and Okrand changed his mind ithout changing
all the examples. Dunno if it's true, but it reassures me about the
contradiction.

Qov     [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian                 



Back to archive top level