tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 13 13:32:00 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: time

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: time
• Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:38:32 -0500
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

From: "Mark J. Reed" <[email protected]>

> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 12:35:25PM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
> > i think someone already told me that tlhIngan Hol doesn't have time
> > references in tense form, so how would you say "we will speak later" or
> > "we will talk later about this?"
>
> The Klingon equivalent of "we will speak later" would literally mean
> "we speak later" (although I don't know if we have a word for
> "later").  The time reference is enough to tell you that the action is
taking
> place in the future; the verb doesn't need to change, too.  Similarly, the
> Klingon equivalent of "we spoke yesterday" is literally "we speak
yesterday".

Mind, /wa'Hu' majatlh/ doesn't "literally" mean "We speak yesterday."
Exactly what it means can't be expressed in English, because English
REQUIRES a tense be chosen.  I might be able to mimic the idea like this:
"Yesterday.  Us.  Speech."  Any natural English translation is flawed,
because it imposes a tense that doesn't exist in the Klingon.

wa'Hu' majatlh.
We spoke yesterday.

DaHjaj majatlh.
We speak today.

wa'leS majatlh.
We will speak tomorrow.

SuStel
Stardate 4035.0

• References:
  • time
    • From: [email protected]
  • Re: time
    • From: "Mark J. Reed" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: DCKL translation problems: {tuj muvwI'}
• Next by Date: Re: "ser" and "estar" (to be)
• Prev by thread: Re: time
• Next by thread: Re: time
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level