<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/12/2022 10:48 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-f0b55c71-e0e1-4531-9bd1-b2835994fcd6-1649774938972@3c-app-webde-bs20">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">SuStel:
</pre>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I understand the difference. In English you can replicate this with simple past and past perfect tenses:
The conversation was very unpleasant, so I decided to leave. (The decision took place during the unpleasant conversation.)
The conversation had been very unpleasant, so I decided to leave. (The decision took place after the unpleasant conversation was over.)
All I can say is that Spanish imperfect and preterite tenses include a sense of "past" that Klingon verbs don't have. You can't set up multiple levels of being in the past just with verbs. You need other words to establish contexts.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
So the way to distinguish in Klingon between *The conversation was very unpleasant* and *The conversation had been very unpleasant* is adding time context, as you do in your examples:</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Well, the way to distinguish in Klingon between the decision to
leave happening during a conversation or after it is to give time
context to when the conversation and the decision happen. Klingon
verbs happen when you say they happen. If you don't say when they
happen and there is no context to figure that out, then when they
happen is left vague.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-f0b55c71-e0e1-4531-9bd1-b2835994fcd6-1649774938972@3c-app-webde-bs20">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">DaSjaj naH ja'chuqghach, ngugh vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq. On Monday, the conversation was hostile, so I decided to leave at that time.
DaSjaj naH ja'chuqghach, povjaj vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq. On Monday, the conversation was hostile, so on Tuesday I decided to leave.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Right?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-f0b55c71-e0e1-4531-9bd1-b2835994fcd6-1649774938972@3c-app-webde-bs20">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I would choose a more specific word; I don't think Klingon has one that covers everything that unpleasant does. Examples: baw'Ha'moH ja'chuqghach The conversation makes one uncomfortable, worried, hesitant; [...]
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I like this one! By the way, I know we shouldn't use *-ghach* with verbs without a suffix, that's why I added *-taH*, but (I see it now) since *ja'chuq* has already a suffix, it wouldn't have been necessary. Is there any important difference between *ja'chuqghach* and *ja'chuqtaHghach*?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><b>ja'chuqghach</b><i> a telling to each other<br>
</i><b>ja'chuqtaHghach</b> <i>an ongoing telling to each other</i><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-f0b55c71-e0e1-4531-9bd1-b2835994fcd6-1649774938972@3c-app-webde-bs20">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">2. *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* could have two interpretations, right?: *Yesterday, I ate at 12 pm* (perfective) or *Yesterday, I had (already) eaten at 12 pm*. Is context (or maybe adding something like *wejHa'*) the only way to distinguish these meanings?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu' means that you ate lunch at noon, not that you had already eaten lunch when noon rolled around.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Ok. I think that's the same problem again. Without further context, *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* means *Yesterday, I ate at 12 pm*. So if I want to get the meaning *Yesterday, I had already eaten at 12 pm*, I must add something. Maybe *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' wejHa' jISoppu'*?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Yes, that works. Or you could say something like <b>wa'Hu'
wa'maH cha'logh Qoylu'pu'pa', jISoppu'</b><i> Yesterday before
noon, I had eaten.</i></p>
<p><i></i><br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-f0b55c71-e0e1-4531-9bd1-b2835994fcd6-1649774938972@3c-app-webde-bs20">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">3. I discussed this in another thread, I only want to be sure I understood it correctly: Although the sentence in 2 has for the past those two interpretations (perfective not perfect and perfective perfect), for the future (despite the fact this could be otherway in other languages) there is in Klingon only a *perfective perfect* interpretation (not a *perfective not perfect* one): *wa'leS rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* can only be *Tomorrow, I will have eaten at 12 pm*, right?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It just so happens that in English we have only one kind of perfective future tense: the future perfect. This doesn't affect what the Klingon means; it only affects our translations of the Klingon. Without any time context given, jISoppu' means that I perform an act of eating, expressed as a completed whole with no view of the flow of time within it. It can equally take place in the past, present, or future without any change in meaning. It's just the case that when translating into other languages that DO change tenses based on past, present, and future, you don't get equal treatment of Klingon perfective.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Ok. But if *wa'leS rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* translates as *Tomorrow, I will have eaten at 12 pm*, we are forcing the interpretation that the eating will be finished *before* 12 pm and that's exactly the opposite we do in the past: Without further context *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* means *Yesterday, I ate at 12 pm*, not *Yesterday, I had eaten at 12 pm*. Am I missing something?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>This is simply a limitation of English. In English you are not
allowed to say "at noon tomorrow I ate." The only kind of future
perfective aspect possible in English is the future perfect tense.</p>
<p>English perfect tenses have a connotation of "happened before the
named time, but is somehow relevant to the named time." If I say <i>I
have eaten,</i> what I'm saying is that there was a point in the
past where I ate, and that act is somehow relevant to the present.
If I say <i>Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten,</i> what I'm
saying is that at noon tomorrow eating will be in my past, and the
act of eating will somehow be relevant to whatever happens at
noon.</p>
<p>Klingon has no suffix that does this. If I say <b>wa'Hu' DungluQ
jISoppu',</b> there is no built-in connotation that I ate before
noon yesterday and that the eating is relevant to what happened at
noon. All this sentence says is that yesterday at noon, I ate, and
it's being described as a completed whole from a viewpoint just
after the eating stopped. If I say <b>wa'leS DungluQ jISoppu',</b>
I'm saying that eating will happen tomorrow at noon, and it's
being described as a completed whole from a viewpoint just after
the eating stops.</p>
<p>If you want the "past event relevant to the named time" stuff in
Klingon, then you have to say it explicitly. <b>wa'Hu' DungluQ
jISoppu', pov vaj pe'vIl jISuvpu'</b><i> I ate at noon
yesterday, so in the afternoon I fought forcefully.</i> I named
the time context for each verb to clearly set their temporal order
and used <b>vaj</b> to show that the one led to the other.<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>