<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/22/2022 6:45 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-781fca08-a4b6-4713-9cfb-3616879dc57b-1645530336852@3c-app-webde-bs17">Thank
you for taking the time to *translate* it into the Spanish
grammar! ¿Hablas español?
</blockquote>
<p>Solo un poco.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-781fca08-a4b6-4713-9cfb-3616879dc57b-1645530336852@3c-app-webde-bs17">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">bIpawDI', qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH.
bIpawDI', jIghItlhtaH.
I'm not sure what you're last one means. When you arrive, I will start writing and do it for an hour?
bIpawDI', jIghItlhchoH; qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Yes, that was exactly what I was trying to say.
I find this subject really interesting, so I hope you excuse me if I still have a couple of questions I would like to discuss. I understand what you mean when you say that Klingon breaks apart Spanish imperfective into *-taH* (*estaba escribiendo*, *I was writing*) and *no-aspect-suffix* (*escribía*, *I wrote*). However, *estuve escribiendo* (*I was writing*, *Pretérito Indefinido*) is for me, as Spanish speaker, something with represents a mix between continuous and perfective. For example, I cannot say: *Cuando llegaste, estuve escribiendo un texto* if what I want to say is *When you arrived, I was writing a text*, because *estuve escribiendo* presents the ongoing action of writing as a whole and completed *before* the arriving, although not focusing on the result of the action like *había escrito* (*had written*, *Pretérito Pluscuamperfecto*: focus on the result, the text is here finished).</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>You've exhausted my knowledge of Spanish tenses, I'm afraid. The
best I can do is summarize the Klingon situation from the point of
view of someone speaking from "now":<br>
</p>
<p><b>-pu'</b> and <b>-ta'</b> mean I'm describing the action as a
completed whole, without inspecting its interior structure.<br>
<b>-taH</b> and <b>-lI'</b> mean I'm describing the action as
having an "ongoing" structure, already happening before the given
moment and still happening after the given moment.<br>
<i>Lacking any of these suffixes</i> means I'm describing the
action as neither completed nor as ongoing. I might be describing
being in the moment of the action, or I might be describing a
timeless or general truth.</p>
<p><b>wa'Hu' jIghItlhpu':</b><i> </i>I performed an act of writing
yesterday and competed it. I'm not describing how the act went,
just that it was finished.<br>
<b>DaH jIghItlhpu':</b> I have performed an act of writing that is
finished now, or who prior completion is relevant now.<br>
<b>wa'leS jIghItlhpu':</b> At some point tomorrow I will be
looking back at a competed act of writing.</p>
<p><b>wa'Hu' jIghItlhtaH:</b> I am describing a moment that occurred
yesterday in which I was writing, and describing it as an ongoing
action. Shortly before the moment I was writing, and after the
moment I'll still be writing.<br>
<b>DaH jIghItlhtaH:</b> At this moment I am in the act of writing.
I was doing this before this moment, and I'll still be doing it
after this moment.<br>
<b>wa'leS jIghItlhtaH:</b> At some point tomorrow I'll be in the
act of writing. I will have been doing this before that point, and
I'll still be doing it after that point.</p>
<p><b>wa'Hu' jIghItlh:</b> Yesterday was a day for writing for me.
OR I am describing a moment yesterday in which I was writing,
without any reference to writing before that moment or after that
moment, and without any indication that I completed the act of
writing.<br>
<b>DaH jIghItlh:</b> Right now writing is something I do,
generally. OR I am in the middle of an act of writing, but I'm not
making any suggestion that I was writing before this moment or
that I'll be writing after this moment, or that my writing is in
any way complete.<br>
<b>wa'leS jIghItlh:</b> Tomorrow will be a day for writing for me.
OR I am describing a moment that will occur tomorrow in which I
will be writing, but I don't give any indication that I was
writing before this moment or after this moment, and I don't give
any indication that the writing will be complete.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-781fca08-a4b6-4713-9cfb-3616879dc57b-1645530336852@3c-app-webde-bs17">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">That's the reason why something like *bIpawDI', qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH* sounds for me, as Spanish speaker, really strange. I would interpret it probably as the third option, *When you arrive, I will be writing for an hour (I will start writing and do it for an hour)*,</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>In English, you would have to say <i>When you arrive, I will
write for an hour.</i> I was confused about your meaning,
because in English you don't say <i>I will be writing</i> to
indicate an action that you just started; it means you're
describing a moment in which writing was already happening.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-781fca08-a4b6-4713-9cfb-3616879dc57b-1645530336852@3c-app-webde-bs17">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> and in order to get the meaning *I will have been writing for an hour* I would probably decide to give up the continuous aspect and say something like *jIghItlhpu'* (*I will have written*).</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><i>I will have been writing</i> is not perfective; it's the
future perfect progressive tense. (Remember, perfect is not
perfective.) There is no perfective in <i>I will have been
writing,</i> so translating it as <b>jIghItlhpu'</b> isn't
right. But it is progressive, and the progressiveness of it is
part of the actual meaning (ongoing writing), so <b>-taH</b> is
the correct Klingon translation.</p>
<p>Again, <i>perfect</i> means an action is prior to the time of
the sentence but somehow relevant to the time of the sentence,
while <i>perfective</i> means an action described as a whole
without reference to how it unfolds over time. Klingon has
explicit perfective aspect, not a perfect tense.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-781fca08-a4b6-4713-9cfb-3616879dc57b-1645530336852@3c-app-webde-bs17">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I'm not trying to say that Klingon must work as Spanish does, I'm just trying to understand how Klingon works in order to avoid *Spanish* mistakes. From what you are saying I see three possibilities:
1. *-taH* always expresses continuous and imperfective aspect, so if I want to express perfective aspect I must use *-pu'* and give up *-taH*.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Continuous and perfective are mutually exclusive in Klingon, yes.
<b>-taH</b> describes the internal structure of an action as
already happening before now and still happening after now (where
"now" is the time of the sentence). <b>-pu'</b> describes a
completed, whole action with no description of how the action
unfolded over time. You have to figure out which of these things
your sentence wants to express — or, if neither, to leave off any
type 7 suffix.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-781fca08-a4b6-4713-9cfb-3616879dc57b-1645530336852@3c-app-webde-bs17">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">2. *-taH* always expresses continuous aspect and we should use it when we prefer, for whatever reason, to present the action as continuous - the perfective or imperfective aspect of the action comes from the context.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><b>-taH</b> will never be perfective, and Klingon doesn't have an
explicit imperfective aspect. If you want to identify imperfective
in Klingon, it's just everything that doesn't have perfective.
"Imperfective" isn't a very useful label in Klingon.<br>
</p>
<p><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>