- tlhIngan-Hol - lists.kli.org

perfective {-pu'} using/combining aspect with aspect
by mayqel qunen'oS 08 Apr '22

08 Apr '22

This was going to be a thread where I would ask for clarification on something I didn't understand. Luckily though, SuStel already clarified this matter on the following thread: perfective {-pu'} using/combining aspect with no aspect http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-April/019663.html But I'll proceed by writing some thoughts on this thread, more as note to my future self, explaining to him what it was that made me/him/us confused about this matter. So.. The whole confusion started when I wanted to write: "the inhabitants had started from the earliest times consulting the oracle". After some thought, I decided translating this sentence as "the inhabitants had started obtaining the advice of the oracle, when the the early eras had become to happen". So I wrote: Qun 'otHa'wI' qeS luSuqchoHpu' ngan, qaSchoHpu'DI' bovmey 'eq But the problem now was the following.. Suppose I put the second part of that sentence first: qaSchoHpu'DI' bovmey 'eq, Qun 'otHa'wI' qeS luSuqchoHpu' ngan This sentence now gave me the impression that "when the early eras have begun to happen, the inhabitants had begun obtaining the advice of the oracle", meaning that their starting to obtain the advice, had preceded the commencement of the early eras. This confusion continued until SuStel wrote in the aforementioned thread: ********** quote starts ********** SuStel: Saying wa'Hu' jIXpu' doesn't mean "as of yesterday I have already done X." It means "yesterday, I performed a completed action X." "Completed" doesn't mean action X was a fulfillment of a goal; it's just a way of looking at action X from afar, without internal parts. ********** quote ends ********** Of course, SuStel doesn't talk about a {-XchoHpu'DI', -YchoHpu'} case, but I think that whatever goes for the {wa'Hu' jIXpu'} goes as well for the {-XchoHpu'DI', -YchoHpu'}. Instead of a "yesterday" when the performing of a completed action occured, we now have a {-choH} which is {-pu'}ed when/as soon as a {-choHpu'} happens. So all is good. But unfortunately, I still had the problem already described, whenever I read the {qaSchoHpu'DI' bovmey 'eq, Qun 'otHa'wI' qeS luSuqchoHpu' ngan} "when the early eras have begun to happen, the inhabitants had begun obtaining the advice of the oracle". And I couldn't understand why I was having this problem. Until I realized what was happening (or at least I think I did..) My confusion started from reading the {qaSchoHpu'DI' bovmey 'eq, Qun 'otHa'wI' qeS luSuqchoHpu' ngan} as "when the early eras have begun to happen, the inhabitants had begun obtaining the advice of the oracle", and then translating the English sentence to Greek. If however I read the Klingon as "as soon as the early eras have begun to happen, the inhabitants have begun obtaining the advice of the oracle" (i.e. instead of a "when" I used "as soon as" and instead of a "had" I used a "have"), then neither the English nor the Greek equivalent would sound strange. All I had to do would be perform these tweaks, and voila! Bob's your uncle (as this obscure English idiom/proverb/saying whatever the hell it is, would say..) So finally the confusion went away and everything became right as rain. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

1 0

perfective {-pu'} using/combining aspect with no aspect
by mayqel qunen'oS 07 Apr '22

07 Apr '22

I want to say "Yesterday, because I was hungry, I ordered a pizza", and I want to report the event not in the historical present, but looking back on it. There are two options: wa'Hu' jIghungmo', pItSa' vIvun wa'Hu' jIghungmo', pItSa' vIvunpu' Since I'm looking back on the event, the obvious choice must be {wa'Hu' jIghungmo', pItSa' vIvunpu'}. But isn't it strange saying "Yesterday, because I am hungry, I have ordered a pizza"? Is using/combining aspect with no aspect something which we can do? Or is it that in occasions as the above, the only choice is to report the event in the historical present? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

4 11

Klingon course at Signum University
by SuStel 06 Apr '22

06 Apr '22

This is mostly of interest to people who are /not/ on this list, but I wanted to make it known here anyway. In May I'll be teaching a course of basic Klingon grammar for Signum University, an online university with an adult continuing education program. It's a four-week course, meeting on Zoom twice a week, one hour per session, that will basically go over all the grammar in the second edition of /The Klingon Dictionary,/ with the occasional foray into later-learned grammar. I've tried to arrange the course in a more friendly-to-learn way than TKD, though with only eight sessions there are still times when I have to cram a whole bunch of suffixes into one session. I won't try to teach a huge amount of vocabulary — I'm not any good at the big piles of words we've gotten over the last few years — but the course will be taught to enable a student armed with a word-list or lookup app to put sentences together grammatically. This is not a free course. As part of Signum's SPACE program, it costs $150 for a single token to take a single course, with discounts for buying multiple tokens. (And I'm not expecting to get paid for doing this.) The sessions are not recorded. If it does well, there might be a "Klingon 2" course later, wherein I teach all the slang and idioms and colors and proverbs and familial terms and so on, and there might even be a course where we all read the Klingon Hamlet or some other book. (Hamlet would be great for the established connection between Klingon and Shakespeare, but a book with up to date grammar might be better.) I listen to the podcasts of Corey Olsen, known as "the Tolkien Professor" and founder of Signum University, and in one podcast, while he was talking about new courses in his university's adult continuing education program, a live listener asked if they'd be offering Klingon. He said they didn't have any plans for it, but it would be a great thing to do. So I wrote to him and offered to teach a course. He was excited and connected me with the director of the program. It was a candidate course in March, and enough people signed up for it to confirm it as a May module. So that's how this came to be. The course page: https://blackberry.signumuniversity.org/space/modules/iteration/47/ The SPACE program: https://signumuniversity.org/space/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: mIv'a'
by Klingon Word of the Day 06 Apr '22

06 Apr '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Wednesday, April 06, 2022 Klingon word: mIv'a' Part of speech: noun Definition: crown Source: KGT (219 KE, 239 EK) This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: Qochbe'
by Klingon Word of the Day 05 Apr '22

05 Apr '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Tuesday, April 05, 2022 Klingon word: Qochbe' Part of speech: verb Definition: agree Source: TKD This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: lIlwI'
by Klingon Word of the Day 04 Apr '22

04 Apr '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Monday, April 04, 2022 Klingon word: lIlwI' Part of speech: noun Definition: simulator Source: November 2016 email to Lieven This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

5 6

Klingon Word of the Day: 'oy'naQ
by Klingon Word of the Day 04 Apr '22

04 Apr '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Sunday, April 03, 2022 Klingon word: 'oy'naQ Part of speech: noun Definition: painstick, painstik Source: ADD This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

2 1

Klingon Word of the Day: tlhapqa'
by Klingon Word of the Day 04 Apr '22

04 Apr '22

Klingon Word of the Day for Saturday, April 02, 2022 Klingon word: tlhapqa' Part of speech: verb Definition: retrieve, take again, resume taking Source: Klingon Monopoly, published 1 November 2011 This Klingon Word of the Day is brought to you by qurgh (qurgh(a)kli.org)

4 3

thoughts on the perfective {-pu'}
by mayqel qunen'oS 04 Apr '22

04 Apr '22

(This is a spin-off from the < {je} "too" applying to the adverb > thread http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/2022-March/019586.html) SuStel: > I think you're still confusing past tense with perfective aspect. Yes, you're right. And unfortunately, as much as I try to get things right, in the end I get confused. So I'll write some simple rules about how I understand (and from now on use) the perfective {-pu'}, and if it's not much trouble tell me if you agree. 1. If I'm narrating events of the past using "historical present", i.e. describing them as they happen, then no perfective is used. Example: Yesterday, I wake up, drink coffee, and leave for work wa'Hu' jIvem, qa'vIn vItlhulth, 'ej yaHwIj vIjaHmeH, juH vItlheD 2. If I'm looking back from the present on actions performed and completed, then I use perfective. Example: Yesterday, I ate pizza wa'Hu' pItSa' vISoppu' 3. If I'm looking back from the present on habitual events/actions of the past, events which can be described by the "used to", no perfective is used. Examples: In the past people honored the gods of greece In the past people used to honor the gods of greece (the second sentence describes the intended meaning) pa'logh 'elaDya' Qunpu' quvmoH nuvpu' In the past people regularly honored the gods of Greece pa'logh roD 'elaDya' Qunpu' quvmoH nuvpu' 4. If I'm looking back from the present on completed events/actions of the past, which weren't habitual, but happened more than once, perfective is used: Examples: In the past, I've eaten ten times pizza pa'logh wa'maHlogh pItSa' vISoppu' In the past, I've often eaten pizza pa'logh pIj pItSa' vISoppu' 5. If I'm looking back from the present on quality verbs, and the quality described can be described by the "used to", no perfective is used: In the past you've been weak In the past you used to be weak (the second sentence describes the intended meaning) pa'logh bIpuj In the past this planet has been regularly cold pa'logh roD bIr yuQvam 6. If I'm looking back from the present on quality verbs, but the quality described can't be described by the "used to", perfective is used: In the past the water has been hot In the past there was just one (or maybe two/three/more) occasion(s) when the water was hot (the second sentence describes the intended meaning) pa'logh tujpu' bIQ In the past the water often has been hot pa'logh pIj tujpu' bIQ This is the best I can do when it comes to understanding the {-pu'}, and I'd love to hear whether you agree/disagree with the above. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ

2 1

'op after the noun
by mayqel qunen'oS 04 Apr '22

04 Apr '22

The {'op} is defined as "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity", and in the Ca'Non example of Skybox 7 it is used as {'op SuvwI'} i.e in front of a countable noun which doesn't have the plural suffix. The relevant part of that sentence is: {DujvamDaq 'op SuvwI' tu'lu'bogh po' law' tlhIngan yo' SuvwI' law' po' puS} Suppose we say {'op na'ran Soppu' qeSHoS}. Then this could mean either "the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of an orange", or "the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of oranges". Perhaps one could argue that based on the Ca'Non example of the Skybox 7, "the 'op before a singular noun is to be interpreted as referring to a plural number of that noun". But I don't know if one could argue that, since in this Ca'Non example, interpreting the {SuvwI'} as being singular is impossible. Because, if interpreting the {SuvwI'} as being singular was possible, then that would mean that "the klingon vessel pagh has some/an unspecified quantity of a warrior", i.e. on the pagh happen to serve some of the most skilled legs/arms/DaynguHDu'/whatever of a warrior in the klingon fleet. Of course in star trek everything is possible, on the other hand though, I think that one could come to the following conclusion with regards to the {'op}: Placing the {'op} before a countable noun which has no plural suffix, could mean either "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity of that noun (singular)" or "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity of a number of that noun". While placing the {'op} before an uncountable noun can only mean ""some/an unspecified quantity of that noun (singular)". Of course, I don't know for sure if this conclusion would be correct.. But now let's get back to the fox.. If I write {'op na'ranmey Soppu' qeSHoS}, then this obviously means ""the fox ate some/an unspecified quantity of oranges". But my problem is that this is ambiguous in the following way: Did the fox walk in the house, find an unspecified quantity of oranges and ate them all ? Or did the fox walk into the house, found 40 oranges and ate some of them ? And if the fox indeed ate only some of the oranges, then why not write {na'ranmey 'op Soppu' qeSHoS} ? After all, we *can* write {pItSa' HochHom Soppu' vIghro' tIQ} for "the ancient cat ate almost all of the pizza". ~ Qa'yIn

3 5