<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/23/2021 7:16 AM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de">luis.chaparro@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-3047547a-a150-468d-9524-fced4722ab99-1624446991559@3c-app-webde-bap19">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Sometimes the more you learn, the more insecure you feel. In TKD, section 4.2.7 we read:
<The absence of a Type 7 suffix usually means that the action is not completed and is not continuous (that is, it is not one of the things indicated by the Type 7 suffixes). Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are translated by the English simple present tense. (...) When the context is appropriate, verbs without a Type 7 suffix may be translated by the English future tense (will), but the real feeling of the Klingon is closer to English sentences such as *We fly tomorrow at dawn*, where the present-tense verb refers to an event in the future.>
I guess Okrand forgot the (imperfective) past tense, so it should actually say: *may be translated by the English future tense (will) or simple past*.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>When Okrand says "Verbs with no Type 7 suffix are translated by
the English simple present tense," mentally add "in this book" to
the end of it. He's not telling you how to translate Klingon; he's
telling you how, for simplicity, the book is going to present
aspectless translations.</p>
<p>Earlier, he also says that the book will translate verbs with a
perfective suffix into the English present perfect tense, but
immediately afterward he translates a bunch of sentences using the
simple past tense. So don't take the book's declared conventions
too literally.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-3047547a-a150-468d-9524-fced4722ab99-1624446991559@3c-app-webde-bap19">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">My question is: If you don't have any specific context or any words indicating past or future, should you interpret a verb with no Type 7 suffix as present (as suggested by this quotation of TKD)? Of course, there is (almost) always a context, but sometimes it takes a little bit till context is clear. If a Klingon read at the beginning of a text: *tera'Daq Dab muchwI' noy*, will she or he interpret it as present, because if you want it to mean past or future you MUST use a time expression or a clear context, or will she or he simply not interpret it as present / past / future till context or a time expression clarify it (which could be pretty confusing)?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>No, don't automatically assume present tense. Don't assume any
tense. <b>tera' Dab muchwI' noy</b> all by itself doesn't occupy
any place on a timeline. You can do this if the time the verb
takes place isn't important. For instance: <b>qur Hoch
verenganpu'.</b> This isn't saying that Ferengi <i>are</i>
greedy or <i>were </i>greedy or <i>will be</i> greedy; it's
assigning greediness to all Ferengi without any consideration of
time. And this may be useful sometimes, as I don't <i>want</i> to
restrict my statement to a particular time.<br>
</p>
<p>When you come from a language that encodes tense unavoidably in
every verb, it can be hard to think timelessly. I imagine this
isn't so difficult for Klingons.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-3047547a-a150-468d-9524-fced4722ab99-1624446991559@3c-app-webde-bap19">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Let me put it other way: MUST I always use a clear context or a time expression to get the meaning of present (i.e. be very careful to be sure present is the only possible interpretation in a text), or can I assume that, if no other word or context indicate past or future, the listener / the reader will understand a verb with no Type 7 suffix as present?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>If you want to restrict your verb to the present, you must supply
the context.</p>
<p>Note that, once you have established a time context, it might be
hard to remove it. If I want to say <i>A year ago</i><i> a famous
musician lived on Earth. Not all musicians are famous,</i> I
could say <b>wa' ben tera' Dab muchwI' noy. noybe' Hoch
muchwI'pu',</b> but it might be misinterpreted to mean that, one
year ago, not all musicians were famous. You have to be careful
about this sort of thing; don't translate time contexts without
considering their effects on later statements. I can do it in
English because the tense is built into the verb. I can't just
translate it into Klingon without considering that effect.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>