tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 22 12:23:13 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon Sentence Structure
- From: Steven Lytle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klingon Sentence Structure
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:22:04 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=/+0eWx6Z0GVBG6QFJPZnm+0HMm3hW5fxtAJ95eRe9/U=; b=wusgYL66d0wEyFNuznW8Yb8BgPE00aLbfUUWTku5teWbl4YaCqYaPlasALJQ9uXhsB eSSiUWyROGZp0oOkJRNfHh90RB4oXXx0tqSfJQ8o1txQRvPe0+npzySasaLdnYBY/P/W +si+nM2MC1k0TiK7dBNbE4Wq4W+Ra6THXIGSI=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=tcWfuSp4MK4Mvtemkvjczp7j/ljg0K5ByhsJOOrR8FPqn7s21k7ckEoINuOvs2Fmfz 0IZS/EYq4tk7Iacy+JM0jbFfYLqNTQpFxlss2hn8nmP5nmHgkhhOUjj2dmiicnVq7dn5 OX9yRE+FrFtZC1Kozi08n8MpkSYL6wDCl1OTM=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Verbs without an aspect suffix are translated by the English simple present
tense only because Klingon verbs don't have tense and English verbs don't
have aspects, so the easiest way to translate the verb is to use the
simplest English form there is (the simple present), and let the
participants or context determine which tense is most appropriate.
A Klingon verb does not show tense. It shows only aspect. It can be used in
any situation where English would use a specific tense, so "Hegh" can mean
not only "die", but "will die" and "died" or "did die". "Heghpu'" can also
be translated by any English tense, with the proviso that the aspect marked
by "-pu'" (completed) be included in the sense.
lay'tel SIvten
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Christopher Doty <[email protected]>wrote:
> I'm confused by this discussion, especially ter'eS's comment that the
> aspect suffix isn't needed. In TKD, it says clearly that "verbs with
> no Type 7 [aspect] suffix are translated by the English simple present
> tense." So without the -pu', the correct translation would be 'We
> visit Earth' and not the intended 'We visited Earth'.
>
> Why do we think we don't need the perfective marker here?
>
> Chris
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:34, Tracy Canfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'd say that the aspect suffix depends on a larger context. If I
> > heard the English sentence on its own, I'd assume the speaker meant
> > both "on one occasion in particular" and "now we're back", but that
> > wouldn't have to be true.
> >
> > In French, for example, which marks aspect in the past tense, we have
> >
> > Samedi on a visité la terre <- just once, perfective
> > We visited Earth on Friday
> >
> > Le samedi on visitait la terre <- repeatedly, imperfective
> > We visited Earth every Friday
> >
> > The same English verb, "visited", can describe either the completed or
> > the repeated action. So I agree that its translation doesn't
> > necessarily require a perfective suffix.
> >
> > 2009/11/21 Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>:
> >> --- On Sat, 11/21/09, Tracy Canfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Finally, since the visit is completed, we need an aspect
> >>> suffix -
> >>> something that tells whether an action is completed, in
> >>> progress, or
> >>> neither. The marker for a completed action is -pu'.
> >>>
> >>> visited - wISuchpu'
> >>>
> >>> Put them all together and you get
> >>>
> >>> tera' wISuchpu' jIH SoH je
> >>>
> >>
> >> I would dispute the need for the aspect suffix; otherwise, very nicely
> put.
> >>
> >> -- ter'eS
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>