[tlhIngan Hol] thinking in aspect

[mayqel qunen'oS]

Klingon doesn't have a passive voice..

instead, it has the indefinite subject suffix {-lu'}, which means
"someone/something unspecified does/is".

Now..

True, one *could* translate the sentence {vIghro' leghlu'} as "the cat
is seen", but the exact/literal translation of this sentence, is
"someone/something unspecified sees the cat".

Back in the day, when I was starting out, being more of a beginner
than I'm now, I remember always translating in my mind the {-lu'} as
being passive voice.

Until one day, I started translating it as "someone/something
unspecified does/is", an event which changed many things, with regard
to when and how I would be using it, but that would be the subject of
another mail..

So, what does all this has to do with aspect ?

Klingon, not only lacks a passive voice, but it lacks tenses too.

Saying {yotwI' Suv 'avwI'} can mean any of the following:

the guard fights the intruder
the guard fought the intruder
the guard will fight the intruder

All these alternate translations are valid, and the thing which will
define which of them is meant by the author, depends either on
context, or on the presence of time stamps.

But lets say, I write:

{wa'Hu', yotwI' Suv 'avwI'}

What does it mean ?

Some time ago, when I'd see it, without hesitation, I'd translate it
as "yesterday, the guard fought the intruder".

But recently I realized, that as in the case of the {-lu'} the literal
translation isn't passive voice, here too, the literal translation is
different..

It's not "yesterday, the guard fought the intruder"; it's rather
"yesterday, the guard fights the intruder".

Now, perhaps someone may wonder: "is this distinction important, and
if yes then why ?".

I think, that It's *very* important, because once someone begins to
think in the literal meaning of what the grammar of the sentence in
question actually says, then he'll be better able to use aspect
properly, depending on what he actually wants to say.

Lets see an example:

{wa'Hu', yotwI' Suvmo' 'avwI', QeHchoH HoD} = Yesterday, because the
guard fights the intruder, the captain becomes angry. (the two events
happen simultaneously)

{wa'Hu', yotwI' Suvpu'mo' 'avwI', QeHchoHpu' HoD} = Yesterday, because
the guard has fought the intruder, the captain has become angry. (the
event of the guard fighting the intruder has been completed, the
captain became angry sometime either during the fight or after it had
been completed, and the event of the becoming of the captain has been
also completed)

{wa'Hu', yotwI' Suvpu'mo' 'avwI', QeHchoH HoD} = Yesterday, because
the guard has fought the intruder, the captain becomes angry. (the
event of the guard fighting the intruder has been completed, and then
the captain becomes angry because of that event)

{wa'Hu', yotwI' Suvmo' 'avwI', QeHchoHpu' HoD} = Yesterday, because
the guard fights the intruder, the captain has become angry. (the
guard fights the intruder, without their fight having being completed,
but the event of the becoming angry of the captain is completed)

.. As is seen from these examples, there are variations between the
meaning of each sentence, which variations can only be perceived if
someone understands *exactly* what his eyes are actually reading,
without assigning the meaning of past tense to a verb, just because
that verb is being preceded by a {wa'Hu'}.

Or the meaning of future tense, just because the verb is being
preceded by a {wa'leS}.

~ mayqel qunen'oS