I just have to come out lurking for this.
ter'eS has suggested using the new words {pIq} and {ret} to place a sentence
"in the future" and "in the past," respectively. There have been objections
to this, and these objections surprise me.
Voragh recommends using phrases like {ben law'} "many years ago," {leS law'}
"many days from now," and {nem puS} "a few years from now." Somehow, he
supposes these are more correct than simply using {pIq} and {ret}.
ret yaH lon.
Some unspecified time period ago, he abandoned his post.
ben law' yaH lon.
A few years ago, he abandoned his post.
My impression is that the first sentence is unacceptable to the experts on
the list, while the second is all right. I fail to understand why.
The sentence which occurs is {yaH lon} "He abandons his post." In the
apparently acceptable one, a "timestamp" is added: {ben law'}. As Marc
Okrand explains, the time at which the action occurs (which typically is
expressed with a noun, though there are exceptions) is added to the
beginning of a sentence (just like any noun which isn't subject or object).
So why is {ben law'} superior to {ret}? They're both pretty vague. You at
least know the order of magnitude you're talking about with {ben law'}, but
nothing else. Would {ben yaH lon} be acceptable? "Years ago he abandoned
his post"?
I believe it is the bias of the list which has made this declaration. Years
of familiarity with {ben}, {Hu'}, {nem}, and {leS} have made certain
"accepted" phrases come into common parlance. Then something else like
these new words comes along, and if they don't match the familiar pattern,
they're not accepted.
{ben law'} is not any better than {ben}. And if {ben} is acceptable, then
so must {ret} be. And so on. {ret yaH lon} is a perfectly acceptable, if
vague, sentence. Sticking {ret} or {pIq} in front of a sentence is
equivalent to saying "in the past" or "in the future," respectively. The
original poster was not creating new grammar at all, but using a logical
extension of an already accepted grammar. Note that this is NOT grammatical
tense. Grammatical tense would incorporate tense into the grammar--hence
the name. This is the same form of time labeling as any other time noun.
That said, it's always preferable to state the time context of a sentence
precisely.
SuStel
Stardate 76.6
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2000 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: KliFlash [Was: Re: tlhIngan Hol pojwI' 2.0]
> : ghItlh Voragh:
> : > According to Okrand's article in HolQeD 8.3, {pIq} and {ret} follow
the
> : > noun specifying the lengh of time involved:
> : >
> : > pIq "period of time from now"
> : > - cha' tup pIq
> : > "two minutes from now".
> : >
> : > ret "period of time ago"
> : > - cha' tup ret
> : > "two minutes ago"
> : >
> : > These are words for those irregular periods of time not otherwise
provided
> : > for: Hu'/leS for days, wen/waQ for months, ben/nem for years. We
were
> : > told specifically there isn't one of these word pairs for weeks, oddly
> : > enough.
> :
> : toH, DaH vIyaj. Although, I wonder if this definition totally precludes
the
> : way I used it. {tugh} isn't quite accurate, since it won't really be
soon.
> : I'm planning to do it sometime in the future. If {cha' tup pIq} means
"two
> : minutes from now" (maybe "two minutes in the future"?), 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:
>
> 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.
>
> 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?).
>
> 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.
>
> Nice try, but no cigar.
>
> : -- ter'eS
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>