tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 18 15:17:33 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Qapbe'qa'taH /MUSH/...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, David Trimboli wrote:
> That's only because Klingon has no tense. Klingon doesn't tell you if
> something is "still" true.
Hmm... I *was* going to suggest this was an issue of aspect, rather than
tense, but perhaps you're right.
> jIQuch
> I am happy.
>
> jIQuchchoH
> I become happy.
>
> There's no indication that I'm *still* happy. I don't need to say
> /jIQuchchoHtaH/.
>
> jIQuchqa'
> I resume being happy. I was happy, that condition stopped, then it started
> again.
I don't think they necessarily are exclusive, which you seem to be
implying. I think if they were exclusive, they'd be of the same type...
However, the English translation of those combinations are still
inobvious:
jIQuchchoHtaH
I am becoming happy.
I become happy continuously.
Story Time:
qaHoH 'e' muDIl vay'. qawamchoH 'ach qaSampa' jIH muyaHmoHta' mangghom.
poH ngaj qawamlI'be'. muyaHHa'moHta'DI' qawamqa'lI'.
"Someone pays me to kill you. I start hunting you, but before I find you,
the army takes me away. For a short time, I'm not in the process of
hunting you. As soon as they free me, I am again hunting you."
If you translate that last line in different tenses, it still works:
"As soon as they freed me, I was again on the hunt for you."
"When they eventually free me, I will once again be hunting you."
I think that's probably one of the best examples I could come up with.
The fact that there is a change (Type 3 suffix) does not mean you cannot
have an aspect (Type 7 suffix). Actually, the more I think about this,
the more I like it. The TKD seems to back this up a little:
p37:
"Suffixes of this type [Type 3: Change] indicate that the action described
by the verb involves a change of some kind from the state of affairs that
existed before the action took place."
p42:
"This suffix [-taH] indicates that an action is ongoing."
So, "Qapbe'qa'taH":
Qapbe' -- it isn't in operation
Qapbe'qa' -- it isn't in operation again.
Qapbe'qa'taH -- It continues to be out of operation again.
> > 'ach reH jIqarbejchugh, ja'chuqghach Daj wIjeSbe' qar'a'?
>
> Now, about your use of an object with /jeS/ . . . .
I was wondering if someone was going to pick up on that. ;)
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"Any sufficiently advanced form of magic is
indistinguishable from technology."