tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 22 19:34:52 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Klingon Sentence Structure

Christopher Doty (suomichris@gmail.com)



Yes, exactly, "will run" does not mean a complete action, and it would
thus be incorrect to translate qetpu' as "will run," just as with
Heghpu'.  Essentially everything you've said in this last email is
what I have been saying, except that "will die" can mean a completed
event.  Can you give an example of this?  I'm not sure what you mean.

Chris

On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 19:21, Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're right that "Heghpu'" can be translated (sometimes) as "will have
> died". It means more like "had/has/will have died", depending on the
> context. But to say "there is no sense at all in which "will die" can have a
> perfective meaning in English" is not true. It can mean the completed event,
> even though it's not marked in the verb. Perhaps in this case "die" is not a
> good example. "Will run" doesn't mean a completed action.
> lay'tel SIvten
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but no. ÂHeghpuÊ cannot be translated correctly as "will die."
>> If Heghpu' did indeed refer to a future time, then it could probably
>> be translated as "will have died." ÂThere is no sense at all in which
>> "will die" can have a perfective meaning in English, so to translate a
>> perfective from another language into "will die" in English is to get
>> it wrong.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 18:55, Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Yes, indeed, Heghpu' can be translated as "will die". It is perfective,
>> > completed, but we don't know from the verb whether it's completed in the
>> > past or in the future, or even in the present. It's just completed at
>> some
>> > time.
>> >
>> > Even when you talk about it you get caught up in the English tense: "It
>> > means the activity is over and done with." Actually it means "the
>> > activity *was/is/will
>> > be* over and done with" and we can't tell which without more context.
>> > lay'tel SIvten
>> >
>> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Wait, what?
>> >>
>> >> Just because English doesn't morphologically mark aspect as a
>> >> separate, specific category doesn't mean that English verbs don't have
>> >> aspect. ÂThere is no sense in which "visited" in English is anything
>> >> but a perfective: "visited" cannot be used if one is still visiting,
>> >> if one visits on a regular basis, etc. ÂIt means the activity is over
>> >> and done with.
>> >>
>> >> Likewise, Heghpu' couldn't be translated into English as "he will die"
>> >> because that's not what it means... ÂThe Klingon is indicating
>> >> something that is completed, and the English something that is not
>> >> completed. ÂThey aren't equivalent at all. ÂYou might get Heghpu'
>> >> translated as "he will have died" in a given context, but note that
>> >> we've got the -ed on the verb again, same with visited.
>> >>
>> >> Chris
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:22, Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > 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 <
>> suomichris@gmail.com
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I'm confused by this discussion, especially ter'eS's comment that the
>> >> >> aspect suffix isn't needed. ÂIn TKD, it says clearly that "verbs with
>> >> >> no Type 7 [aspect] suffix are translated by the English simple
>> present
>> >> >> tense." ÂSo 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 <toastrix@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > I'd say that the aspect suffix depends on a larger context. ÂIf 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 visità 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. ÂSo I agree that its translation doesn't
>> >> >> > necessarily require a perfective suffix.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 2009/11/21 Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>:
>> >> >> >> --- On Sat, 11/21/09, Tracy Canfield <toastrix@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Finally, since the visit is completed, we need an aspect
>> >> >> >>> suffix -
>> >> >> >>> something that tells whether an action is completed, in
>> >> >> >>> progress, or
>> >> >> >>> neither. ÂThe 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
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>






Back to archive top level