tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 10 00:04:19 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qay' aspect jay'! Part I
ja' qa'ral:
>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.
I agree that TKD's treatment of translating tenses is a wee bit lacking.
That's understandable, since simple past tense is useful generally for
things like narrative, and TKD doesn't really address writing stories.
In most non-narrative cases where English uses a past tense phrasing, a
perfective idea works just as well.
>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'}.
Remember that good translations are not always literal translations. You
can see in TKD's appendix how certain phrases come out nothing like the
direct translation would render them: {bImoHqu'} for "you look terrible"
and {naDev qaS wanI' ramqu'} for "there's nothing happening here," for
example.
>vaj, someone reading TKD without preconceived notions could reasonably
>conclude that past tenses are virtually always translated into Klingon
>using perfective aspect markers.
Past tense as explanation or context for a present tense statement does
generally translate well using perfective aspect. Past tense by itself,
such as one would find in a story, does not.
The use of past tense for an extended narrative is almost an idiomatic
usage. Note that stage directions in a script are customarily given in
present tense. That's very much how a Klingon story appears.
>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.
I often think the same thing, but it depends on what one intends to do
with the idea. If you are talking about things going on right now and
you want to refer to an action that happened earlier, perfective is very
often exactly the right way to do it. But if you're just telling about
the events that took place yesterday, perfective is rarely appropriate.
>Other canon sources may well throw a different light on this issue, so
>please enlighten me.
The simple and unambiguous canon source that applies here is one of the
audiotapes. I'm pretty sure it's the first one, _Conversational Klingon_.
Simple past tense is unmistakably translated exactly the same way as simple
present tense and simple future tense. The only difference is the use of a
word to provide time reference for the sentence: {wa'Hu', DaHjaj, wa'leS}.
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh