tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 18 17:53:10 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: JangmeH toch De'wI' lo'
On my way out to class, but when I get back I'll defend my reasoning more: Just on a quick note, though...I haven't seen any sentence, written by Okrand or otherwise, that are not translated in present/future tense when lacking -pu', -taH', or -ta'. In order to completely translate things into English, we use tenses, but we must call it "aspect" just because in Klingon they don't know what tense is. Why then identify so many translations with the use of "past/present/future tense" if they're not really tenses? Now, we can keep this discussion civil or start getting arrogant with each other. I've taken my full classes with the KLI and am an English major (the best source for understanding English is by studying foreign languages), so I can go both ways. But I have never seen a sentence that wasn't translated into present tense that carried with it the -taH suffix. And the same is true for the other type 7 suffixes. "I will have seen him"? I'm sorry, but is that a switch in tense? That happens to be improper and absurd. Klingons are blunt, to the point, and quick. They don't have time to add the "fill-in" words like DaH, DaHjaj, or other crap. Walking around and a Klingon says something with -pu' attached to it, I know that it is in past tense. It would be real hard for them to get by otherwise.
DloraH <[email protected]> wrote: > I probably would have stated your sentence differently and
> avoided -lu' altogether.
Why do you want to avoid -lu'?
How would you say a sentence without specifying the subject?
> ... but there is definitely a past tense (-pu' or -ta') and in some
> cases a present tense (-taH).
Type 7 suffixes are NOT tense; they are aspect.
> but when we translate Klingon into English we find that Klingon
> does in fact have tense,
The english TRANSLATION might use tense, but the klingon does not.
> Aspect, in most cases, is identified to us through the word "tense."
Umm... NO. They are two different concepts.
Let's use the root sentence /vIlegh/ "I see him".
vIlegh - I saw him.
vIlegh - I see him.
vIlegh - I will see him.
vIleghpu' - I have seen him.
vIleghpu' - I saw him.
vIleghpu' - I will have seen him.
vIleghtaH - I was continuously seeing him.
vIleghtaH - I am continuously seeing him.
vIleghtaH - I will be continuously seeing him.
None of those sentences have time-stamps; so we don't know when the action
takes place.
Add time-stamps:
wejHu' vIlegh - I saw him three days ago.
DaH vIlegh - I see him now.
wejleS vIlegh - I will see him three days from now.
wejHu' vIleghpu' - Three days ago I had already seen him. I might have seen
him four days ago, I might have seen him a year ago; I don't get that
specific; I merely say that as of three days ago the act of seeing him was
over with.
DaH vIleghpu' - Now, at this point in time, I have already seen him. I
might have seen him yesterday, or it might have been a few months ago.
wejleS vIleghpu' - Three days from now I will have seen him. I might see
him later today, I might see him tomorrow; I don't specify when I see him,
only that by time three days from now gets around our paths will have
crossed.
wejHu' vIleghtaH - Three days ago I continuously saw him. It wasn't just a
glance. I was spying on him and kept an eye on him all day.
DaH vIleghtaH - I am continuously seeing him right now. He's been in my
sight for a while and I will be watching him for some time.
wejleS vIleghtaH - Three days from now I will continuously see him. It
won't be just a glance. I'll keep him in my sight all day.
DloraH
Glory to you, and to your House.
taHjaj wo'
Qapla'
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.