tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 02 16:38:14 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: Qov mu'mey jang pIlo / KLBC

jIjatlh:

> and since <vIlegh> happens to be a verb after <'e'>, 
> it can't have a type seven suffix on it, so you have
> to drop the <-pu'>.
>
> ghomraj jIHDaq cha'lu' 'e' vIlegh


jatlh pI'lo:

> so what I'd be saying then is < Someone dispays your 
> group picture on the monitor screen, I see it.>

Correct. What you see is the action of it being displayed rather than the
actual picture, but it amounts to pretty much the same thing.

> but how then can I denote my seeing it in the past 
> tense?

You have used the magic word - tense. Klingon simply does not *have* tense.
If I saw something yesterday, I can say <wa'Hu' vIlegh> or just plain
<vIlegh>. Today is <DaHjaj vIlegh>. Tomorrow is <wa'leS vIlegh>.

Klingon does have something related to tense called aspect - that's what the
type seven suffixes are for. They relate to the completion of events
described by the verb. The suffixes <-pu'> and <-ta'> do not mean that the
event occured in the past, but rather that at whatever time the sentence is
talking about, the events were/are/will be complete. For example, <lojmIt
vISoQmoHta'> could mean any of the following:

I had closed the door - as in - When the alarm went off, I had already
closed the door.

I have closed the door - as in - I spent all morning trying to close the
bloody thing (it's very heavy), and now I have finally closed it.

I will have closed the door - as in - The door is open now, but by the time
the tribbles get here, I will have closed it.

In all three cases, when the other event in the sentence happened, the door
was closed - the action was complete.


> also Please tell me where in TKD I need to study 
> about not being able to tack the suffix on a verb
> after <'e'>.

TKD page 66: "... in complex sentences of this type, the second verb never
takes an aspect suffix". Don't worry too much about missing this - I think
Seqram calls this the "obscure rule".

> thanx for being so diligent in your prompt answers to 
> my endless questions.

Qu'wIj vISIQqang.


pagh
Beginners' Grammarian

tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm

Back to archive top level