[tlhIngan Hol] Using -ta' during -taHvIS

[Will Martin]

Is feeding a cat really that much of an accomplishment? Is it that important to point out that you had planned feeding the cat as your goal and that you successfully reached that goal? If so, then by all means, use {-ta’}.

Why bother with a suffix if it doesn’t really add much to the meaning? It’s okay to omit it. I don’t have to explain to you why I omitted it. I did not make a mistake by omitting it. I would not have made a mistake by including it. It’s my choice. I can say it the way I want to say it.

Remember that {-ta’} is not “past tense, plus an expression that the action was intentional”. Okrand did originally intend to have tense in the language, but the evolution of the language (because of movie subtitles that were changed) swept that intent aside and replaced it with the “aspect”.

This point has been argued a lot, many times, but what it comes down to is that time stamps in Klingon may or may not imply a duration. They tell you when something happened, and that time reference could be an instant, or it could be a minute long, or an hour long, or a day long, or a year long, or a decade long, or a century long, etc. You have to factor in the duration of the time stamp.

The {-‘pu’} and {-ta’} suffixes have everything to do with the moment that the action of the verb was completed. It’s definitely okay to use these suffixes if your intent is to say that the action was completed before the time period indicated by the time stamp. It’s also okay if your intent is to say that it’s completed during the duration of the time stamp.

The main thing to realize is that it brings focus to the completion of the act, rather than the doing of the act.

Consider the difference between the following in English and Klingon:

"I fed the cat every day." {Hoch jaj vIghro’ vIje’.} This is simple past tense. Klingon doesn’t indicate past tense. Today, I go to the store. Yesterday, I go to the store. Tomorrow, I go to the store. There is no tense. Get used to it. Time stamp, yes. Tense, no.

“I intentionally accomplished feeding the cat every day.” {Hoch jaj vIghro’ vIje’ta’.} There’s still no tense indicated here. The time stamp, “every day” includes a time when the feeding of the cat was complete, and the accomplishment of that completion had been previously planned, and the plan was executed successfully.

“I had fed the cat every day.” {Hoch jaj vIghro’ vIje’pu’.} There was a time within each day that the cat had been fed, and I was the one who did it. I didn’t start feeding it and then wait until sunrise and finish slightly after sunrise, allowing a day to pass without the cat having finished a day without being completely fed. The fact of my feeding it is not really that important. The fact that the act of feeding by me was completed within the time stamp. That’s where the focus of meaning is. Was there a plan? Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t care to express whether or not there was a goal or plan here. I’m merely letting you know that within the time period referred to by the time stamp, the end of the act of feeding the cat was reached, sufficient that nobody would suggest that the cat had been incompletely fed during the time stamp. The cat did not continue to require food after I fed it, so I stopped feeding it. Done.

Every day, done.

Am I making sense here?

charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan

rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.




> On Feb 25, 2019, at 2:32 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> charghwI':
> > During ten years, I fed the cat once.
> > qaStaHvIS wa’maH DIS wa’logh vIghro’ 
> > vIje’.
> 
> Why didn't you place -ta' on the vIje' ?
> 
> charghwI':
> > During ten years, I fed the cat an 
> > unspecified number of times.
> > qaStaHvIS wa’maH DIS rut vIghro’ vije.
> 
> Again, why didn't you place a -ta' on the vIje' ?
> 
> charghwI':
> > qaStaHvIS wa’maH DIS, qaSDI' Hoch jaj  
> > wa’logh vIghro’ vije’
> 
> Again, why not vIje'ta' ?
> 
> Don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to correct you. I'm only asking because I don't understand the missing -ta'.
> 
> As far as the Hoch goes, I'm afraid jevreH mixed up the corresponding meanings.
> 
> Hoch jaj = each day 
> Hoch jajmey = all days 
> jaj Hoch = all of the day 
> jajmey Hoch = all of the days 
> 
> kgt p.55, HQ 5.2 p.11 jun 1996
> 
> Of course, since the HolQeD transcription project went to the toilet, don't ask me what's actually written in the issue that I mentioned.
> 
> It is just, that a little bird told me, that there's something there with regards to the Hoch.
> 
> ~ Capricorn
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org>
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190225/31de5f30/attachment-0015.htm>