tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 19 13:44:12 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ma'veq: It's official
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ma'veq: It's official
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:44:05 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 05:59:03 -0800 (PST) Adam Snyder
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>I am not trying to say, "I used to think...", I am actually trying to say
> >>"I had thought..." which is completely different.
> >
> >
> >*I* don't see much difference. They both seem to say something like
> >"I thought ... once, but now I don't."
>
> That is yet another, different, statement. I will tell you why. They are
> all in separate tenses:
>
> "I used to think..." is in the imperfect past tense.
I've seen this statement a couple times here recently and I
can't quite agree with it. "I used to think" just seems
idiomatic and could easily be replaced by "I have thought" which
is present perfect, not past imperfect. I would have expected "I
was thinking" to be past imperfect, which is not the same
concept as "I used to think".
After all, if you "used to" do something, that implies that you
don't do it any more, which implies perfective.
English gets really twisted in the way that it combines tense
and aspect. Klingon makes a lot more sense to me in this
regard...
> "I had thought..." is in the perfect past tense.
> "I thought..." is in plain, old, vanilla, past tense.
>
> They are all different, the difference is subtle, but it is there. It is a
> common error to confuse these tenses, but it is an error none the less. It
> may be important to understand what I am trying to assay in your *own*
> language, before you try to understand my translation of it. I am not
> protesting that there no tenses in the Klingon language. I am not saying
> that I can put a type 7 suffix on the second part of a SOA sentence. I am,
> however, saying that I do not care. I am, on occasion, willing to sacrifice
> perfect grammar in the interest of clarity. People do it all the time.
I can see why you say this and why it disturbs others to read
you saying it.
> [snip]
>
> >>*chutmey vIlobbe'qang 'e' vIjatlh neH. HIchergh.*
> >
> >
> >va. bIHeSqu'be', 'ach bIbIvbej. bIQoSbe'mo' qacherghqangbe'.
>
> jum 'e':
You can't use {'e'} as a subject.
> Hoch vIcherghlaH. QeH'a' Sep cherghbe'ghach 'ej QeH'a' vIneHbe'
> jIH. HIchergh.
jIQeHbe'.
> --- loD Doq
charghwI' 'utlh