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*.
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.
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.
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)?
No, don't automatically assume present tense. Don't assume any
tense. tera' Dab muchwI' noy 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: qur Hoch
verenganpu'. This isn't saying that Ferengi are
greedy or were greedy or will be greedy; it's
assigning greediness to all Ferengi without any consideration of
time. And this may be useful sometimes, as I don't want to
restrict my statement to a particular time.
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.
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?
If you want to restrict your verb to the present, you must supply the context.
Note that, once you have established a time context, it might be
hard to remove it. If I want to say A year ago a famous
musician lived on Earth. Not all musicians are famous, I
could say wa' ben tera' Dab muchwI' noy. noybe' Hoch
muchwI'pu', 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.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name