tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 09 02:01:29 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
qay' aspect jay'! Part I
- From: Carleton Copeland <[email protected]>
- Subject: qay' aspect jay'! Part I
- Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:02:23 +-400
- Encoding: 56 TEXT
jatlh ghunchu'wI':
> If one takes TKD's explanation as correct and complete, without trying
> to read anything into it from other sources, one should have no trouble
> understanding it. A certain amount of initial confusion between tense
> and aspect is expected, since English is so tense-bound and Klingon is
> not, but that confusion should be quickly dispelled with a few examples
> of correct usage.
> Section 4.2.7 of The Klingon Dictionary is the key. Read it. Try not
> to apply any preconceived notions based on the terminology it defines.
> Accept it as the authority on Klingon-only aspect.
jang peHruS. jatlh:
> If everyone accepts ONLY TKD 4..7, fine!
DaH jImISqu'! ghunchu'wI' and peHruS seem to be reaching an agreement on
aspect, and I find myself in uneasy disagreement with both!
Until now, I've been conservative in my use of aspect, preferring to rely
on context and time stamps to express English tenses and using aspect
markers to emphasize completion or incompletion. Since no one (pabpo',
'utlh, or otherwise) has ever objected to my usage, I thought my feel for
aspect must be pretty good. Then I bought a TKD.
My first problem is with expressing past tenses in Klingon:
TKD mentions only two ways of translating verbs without aspect markers into
English: "Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are translated by the English simple
present tense ... When the context is appropriate, verbs without a Type 7
suffix may be translated by the English future tense." No mention of the
past tense.
Then, searching through TKD, I could find only one example anywhere of an
English past tense translated into Klingon without the use of a perfective
aspect marker (or rIntaH)--nuQaw'qu'be' (They have not finished us
off)--and here, despite my conservatism, I would have definitely added
{-ta'}.
vaj, someone reading TKD without preconceived notions could reasonably
conclude that past tenses are virtually always translated into Klingon
using perfective aspect markers. I have no wish to conflate aspect and
tense (Hutlhbogh tlhIngan Hol net Sov), but my reading of TKD tells me that
I should probably be using {-pu'} and {-ta'} far more often when I have
English past tenses in mind.
Other canon sources may well throw a different light on this issue, so
please enlighten me.
qa'ral