tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 27 19:30:59 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KliFlash [Was: Re: tlhIngan Hol pojwI' 2.0]
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KliFlash [Was: Re: tlhIngan Hol pojwI' 2.0]
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 22:30:33 EST
ghItlh Voragh:
> : are we sure {pIq}
> : can't mean simply "in the future"?
>
> Considering this was only revealed in September, it's still to early to
> know for sure but I consider it HIGHLY unlikely. You're trying to re-write
> the grammar and create completely unnecessary tense markers:
>
Well, I was just wondering...
> ret DaH pIq = past present future
>
> Okrand specifically rejected grammatical tense for Klingon - something he's
> repeated over and over again - choosing aspect instead. (As in a handful
> of Amerindian languages he was no doubt familiar with.) We know from
> interviews that {-pu'} was originally going to be just a past-tense suffix,
> but for some reason - perhaps out of sheer orneriness - Okrand changed his
> mind and went in a different direction.
I hardly think that speculating about a timestamp can be considered re-writing
the grammar to create tense markers. It is certainly true that the Klingon
verb does not show tense, but it is also certainly true that the Klingon
mind understands the concept of past, present and future, and that the
Klingon language can express these concepts. It just doesn't use tensed
verbs to do so. What are words like {nem}, {ben}, {ngugh}, etc., if not
ways to set time contexts?
>
> If you need to say something will be done in the future, you can guestimate
> if you don't have a precise date using the existing vocabulary: {leS law'}
> "a many days from now", {nem puS} "a few years from now", etc. We've
> routinely used the "ago" words for this, particularly {ben}: {ben law'qu'}
> "many, many years ago" (i.e. once upon a time?).
>
None of these methods cover the particular situation of planning to something
at a time in the future even the speaker isn't sure of. Actually, since we
know
that Klingons can be inaccurate, but never approximate, it would probably
just be best to say {vIghun 'e' vIHech} and leave it at that.
> Okrand clearly, if briefly, explained that {pIq} and {ret} follow the noun
> specifying the length of time involved and provided examples. Seems pretty
> straight-forward clear to me.
>
As I said, I had lost my full notes, and had only a brief gloss for these
words;
too brief, evidently.
> Nice try, but no cigar.
>
maj; *cigar* vIparchu'!
-- ter'eS
http://www.geocities.com/teresh_2000
http://www.geocities.com/weseb_2000