tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 04 07:30:56 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Aspect
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Aspect
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:30:52 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 00:56:28 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
> Here are some sentences for comments:
>
> loD legh puq = The boy sees the man.
Good, though context may make this also mean:
The boy saw the man.
or
The boy will see the man.
Simple past, present or future is indicated by a time stamp or
other time context. This lone example lacks such, so all three
translations are valid.
> loD leghtaH puq = The boy is seeing the man.
That's a good loose translation. The boy continuously sees the
man. Time is passing and the seeing happens. There's no
reference to it when it started or when it might stop. The
seeing is less of an event than a process with an indefinite
duration.
> loD leghpu' puq = The boy has seen the man.
Again, context could also make this mean:
The boy had seen the man.
or
The boy will have seen the man.
All three translations are valid and only a time context can
tell us which is more accurate.
> loD leghta' puq = The boy saw the man and may see him again.
Nope. The {-ta'} suffix has EXACTLY the same aspect as {-pu'}
with the addition that the completion of the action was a
premeditated goal and so the completion of it is an
accomplishment. It has nothing to do with "and may see him
again."
More accurately, this could mean:
The boy has accomplished seeing the man.
The boy had accomplished seeing the man.
The boy will have accomplished seeing the man.
This wording is a little awkward, but then, this is one of those
things Klingon expresses more gracefully than English.
> loD leghlI' puq = The boy sees the man now but won't keep on seeing him for
> long.
That's passibly close. This is another thing more gracefully
said in Klingon than in English. {-lI'} is just like {-taH}
except it implies a definite, foreseeable completion to the
action. It was apparently designed to mirror the {-pu'/-ta'}
division, and so tends to imply an intentionality to the action,
though this is not always the case. It is okay, for example, to
say {pumlI' nagh}. Even though the rock is not INTENTIONALLY
falling with the goal of completing the act of falling, the
completion of the act is so foreseeable that {-lI'} works.
So, in the purest sense, it means something close to "is
accomplishing X", when it ties into that same sense of
accomplishment that {-ta'} carries, but its meaning apparently
stretches to cover other actions without an intentional goal
when the end of the action is clearly foreseeable. You are
calling attention to the fact that the action is now continuous,
but will foreseeably end when you use {-lI'}.
> be' SuchtaHvIS loD, loD legh puq = The boy sees the man while the man is
> visiting the woman.
Yes, though again, a time stamp or other time context could make
this also mean:
The boy will see the man while the man visits the woman.
or
The boy saw the man while the man visited the woman.
> be' SuchtaHvIS loD, loD leghtaH puq = The boy keeps on seeing the man all the
> whild the man is visiting the woman.
That's an interesting translation of an interesting combination
of suffixed verbs. It works. To my eye, it may be quite possible
that the boy continues to see the man before and/or after the
man visits the woman, but during the duration of the man
visiting the woman, the boy continuously sees the man.
And again, this could all be shifted to past or future with time
stamp or other time context. The {-taHvIS} is almost a time
stamp, but since there is no indication of when the visit
happened, all this could be shifted to simple past, present or
future.
> be' SuchtaHvIS loD, loD leghpu' puq = The boy saw the man while the man was
> visiting the woman.
No. While the visit happened, the seeing had been completed.
Three possibilities:
While the man visited the woman, the boy had seen the man.
[English doesn't as clearly indicate that the seeing happened
and was not continuing BEFORE the visiting. Again, this is
something Klingon says more precisely than English.]
While the man visits the woman, the boy has seen the man.
[Again, the seeing is a done deed when the visiting starts.]
While the man will visit the woman, the boy will have seen the
man. [Again, the seeing was complete before the visit started.]
> be' SuchtaHvIS loD, loD leghta' puq = The boy was seeing the man and may still
> see the man for a limited duration, while the man has been visiting the woman.
No. While the man visited the woman, the boy had accomplished
seeing the man.
or
While the man visits the woman, the boy has accomplished seeing
the man.
or
While the man will visit the woman, the boy will have
accomplished seeing the man.
> be' SuchtaHvIS loD, loD leghlI' puq = The boy is seeing the man, but it will
> end soon, and simultaneously the man is visiting the woman.
That's awkward, but fairly accurate. While the man visited the
woman, the boy was accomplishing seeing the man.
or
While the man visits the woman, the boy is accomplishing seeing
the man.
or
While the man will visit the woman, the boy will be
accomplishing seeing the man.
My wording is also awkward, but English just doesn't handle this
as well as Klingon does. The important sense of "is
accomplishing" here is that the action is continuous with a
foreseeable goal or end.
> be' SuchDI' loD, loD legh puq = When the man visits the woman, the boy will
> see the man.
Yes.
Or
When the man visited the woman, the boy saw the man.
or
When the man visits the woman, the boy sees the man.
Context tells us whether this whole thing is past, present or
future.
> be' Suchpu'DI' loD, loD legh puq = Once the man has visited the woman, the boy
> will see him.
Yes. I'd put it:
When the man had visited the woman, the boy saw the man.
or
When the man has visited the woman, the boy sees the man.
or
When the man will have visited the woman, the boy will see the
man.
> be' SuchDI' loD, loD leghtaH puq = When the man visits the woman, the boy will
> still be seeing him.
This feels a little out of focus. The point is that the moment
the man visits the woman is a moment that occurs somewhere
within a vague duration during which the boy continuously sees
the man. We don't care when the boy started seeing the man or
when he will stop. We are not paying attention to that. The
visit is an event. The seeing is an ongoing process. It doesn't
have to be perpetual, just ongoing.
> be' Suchpu'DI' loD, loD leghtaH puq = As soon as the man finishes visiting the
> woman, the boy will still be seeing him.
I like all of this except the word "still". To me, the English
"still" implies that the seeing is now happening and will
continue until the moment in time that the visit is complete.
The Klingon is saying that there is a specific moment when the
visit ends. That moment may be in the past, the present or the
future. There is no time stamp here or other time context here
to tell us which of these is the case.
When that moment occurs that the visiting is complete, the
seeing will have begun some time earlier and will continue until
some time later. We do not concern ourselves with the beginning
or the ending of seeing. We only concern ourselves with its
state of continuous action at the moment that the visiting ends.
> be' SuchDI' loD, loD leghpu' puq = When the man visited the woman, the boy had
> seen him.
Yes, if the visiting is in the past. The other two possibilities
are:
When the man visits the woman, the boy has seen him.
or
When the man will visit the woman, the boy will have seen him.
> be' Suchpu'DI' loD, loD leghpu' puq = By the time the man had visited the
> woman, the boy had already seen him.
That's a good, loose translation with the time set in the past.
Again, consider the present and the future and you've got it.
I'd probably just use "When" instead of "by the time", but this
works.
> be' Suchpa' loD, loD legh puq = The boy saw the man before the man saw the
> woman.
The man VISITED the woman. Were you just testing to see if I was
really paying attention? :)
Again, this doesn't tell us if the visiting is past, present or
future, and the seeing would be adjustted accordingly.
> be' Suchpu'pa' loD, loD legh puq = The boy saw the man before the man had seen
> the woman.
Yes, if the word "visit" is used appropriately. Plus the whole
thing can be shifted to present or future.
> be' Suchpa' loD, loD leghtaH puq = The boy was seeing the man even before the
> man saw the woman.
This is a good loose translation, once the word "visit" is
appropriately used. The word "even" adds something that might or
might not be accurate. Again, this could be present or future as
well.
> be' Suchpu'pa' loD, loD leghtaH puq = Before the man had completed seeing the
> woman, the boy was seeing that man.
Interesting. I would have said, "Before the man had visited the
woman, the boy was seeing the man." Would this work if the boy
started seeing the man DURING the visit? I suspect this is
ambiguous, though likely there will be strong opinions on this.
Again, this can be shifted to present or future.
> be' Suchpa' loD, loD leghpu' puq = The boy had seen the man before the man saw
> the woman.
Visit. Otherwise yes, plus the possibility that the whole thing
is present or future.
> be' Suchpu'pa' loD, loD leghpu' puq = The boy had already seen the man before
> the man had seen the woman.
Visit. Fine. Present and future, too.
> That's enough for now.
Yep.
> peHruS
charghwI' 'utlh