tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 09 14:05:44 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: qay' aspect jay'! Part I

Okrand has stated at qep'a' that there was a time early in the 
development of the language that what is now aspect WAS tense. 
He originally developed the language with tense. He has never 
explained the specific reason that he changed his mind to remove 
the concept of tense from the language and use time stamps and 
aspect instead, but he has done so.

Likely, this change occurred at some point during the 
development of TKD, so it would not surprise me if it is not 
altogether clear and consistent in the use of Type 7 suffixes.

Since the publication of TKD, however, he has been very clear 
and consistent in his use and description of Type 7 suffixes.

charghwI' 'utlh

On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 13:02:23 +-400 Carleton Copeland 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 

Will Martin
UVA ITC Computer Support Services

Back to archive top level