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*. 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)? 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? Or am I missing something? Thank you!
jatlh luis.chaparro
<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*.
I don't think so. While it is generally true that it could also be interpreted as past, he is giving a specific future tense example and so did not mention the possibility of past tense here.
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)?
I think it is more likely that Klingons are able to think outside of the grand scheme of tense. They don't assume it is present. The details that they are hearing exist in their own time frame until something comes along to put them into the listener's time frame somewhere. I guess in a way it's like thinking in present tense, but not in one's own timeline, just in the timeline of the events being discussed. The famous musician lives on earth in his or her own timeline. Later you may find that it is happening right now during your present time line or that it was in the past or the future, but I don't think Klingons automatically make any assumptions about where to put it on their own timeline and so do not assume it is in their own current present tense. If the topic turns out to be particularly relevant to their own timeline, I wouldn't be surprised to hear them asking for a more specific time context so they can place it properly. However, some stories are fine left out of our own timeline and existing just as stories in their own time.
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 the placement of your statements with regard to the current actual time line is important to you or to your listeners, then giving them some time context is very important. If you want to be clear and specific that it is happening right now, then you must use language that is clear and specific that it is happening right now. The context of things happening right now often make it clear that you are talking about the present. And other forms of time context exist besides time expressions. But if other context does not make it clear and you want it to be clear, then say so. If it is not important that your listeners be able to place the events relative to themselves or to you in time, then such time context is not important and may be left off completely. The use or absence of Type 7 suffixes is irrelevant to where it happens with regard to your own timeline. They just tell you whether that particular action has already been completed, is still ongoing, or is not being thought of as one of those things within the timeline of your telling. janSIy
On 6/23/2021 7:16 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
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
Thank you, janSIy and SuStel for your datailed answers! That's exactly what I was thinking. Or rather fearing, because I've realised I must be *really* careful in order to get the right meaning. In the last text in Klingon I've posted here I began with this sentence: <DoyIchlanDaq tagha' loQ QaQ muD Dotlh 'ej Hur wItIvlaH. 'ach jImejpa' tlhIngan HolwIj vIqeq vIneH. ghojmeH pov meq motlh luSovlu'bogh. vaj *flamenco* meHghem vIrIch vIneH.> Till this point a Klingon wouldn't interpret it as past, present or future. Then I begin to speak about *flamenco*, so context makes it clear and the Klingon reader understands I'm speaking about "now", right? If I want to make it clearer from the beginning, I can say something like: *DaHjaj DoyIchlanDaq...* But later I say: <vatlh DIS poH wa'maH Hut *Andalusia*Daq chenpu' *flamenco*, 'ach mungDaj Sovlu'chu'be'. nger law' tu'lu'. meHghemvam luSIghlaw'pu' nugh pIm. wa' nugh potlh 'oHbejpu' *Romani* nugh'e'.> The sentences *'ach mungDaj Sovlu'chu'be'. nger law' tu'lu'* aren't actually clear for someone who has no idea about the actual situation of *flamenco* research: There are or there were many theories? However, when you are explaining something and say: *Its origin wasn't known, there were many theories*, the logical thing to do is to add something like: "But today we know it" or "And it's still unknown today". So, since I didn't add anything like this in my Klingon text, the reader is likely to interpret it as present: *Its origin isn't known. There are many theories*. What I'm trying to say is that sometimes context comes from what isn't said rather than from what is actually said, and that what is expected in a particular context should be taken into account. Am I getting it? Thank you!
On 6/23/2021 12:27 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
In the last text in Klingon I've posted here I began with this sentence: <DoyIchlanDaq tagha' loQ QaQ muD Dotlh 'ej Hur wItIvlaH. 'ach jImejpa' tlhIngan HolwIj vIqeq vIneH. ghojmeH pov meq motlh luSovlu'bogh. vaj *flamenco* meHghem vIrIch vIneH.> Till this point a Klingon wouldn't interpret it as past, present or future. Then I begin to speak about *flamenco*, so context makes it clear and the Klingon reader understands I'm speaking about "now", right? If I want to make it clearer from the beginning, I can say something like: *DaHjaj DoyIchlanDaq...*
I don't see the sentence that introduces the flamenco adds any time context. The only time context I could possibly piece together from this is from the word *jImejpa',* which isn't *jImejpu'pa',* so you're not describing something /before I left/ (a competed act); you're describing something happening contemporaneous with some viewpoint, possibly /before I leave/ (an imperfective act, presumably in the future)//. Therefore I probably would not interpret this sentence as being in the past, but as referring to something that takes place before you leave in the future. It might be in the present (/before I leave /[the leaving is in the future] /I want to practice Klingon/ [the wanting is in the present])//or in the future (/before I leave/ [the leaving is in the future] /I will want to practice Klingon/ [the wanting is in the future]). The former seems more likely to me, so I'd interpret the whole thing to refer approximately to the present.
But later I say: <vatlh DIS poH wa'maH Hut *Andalusia*Daq chenpu' *flamenco*, 'ach mungDaj Sovlu'chu'be'. nger law' tu'lu'. meHghemvam luSIghlaw'pu' nugh pIm. wa' nugh potlh 'oHbejpu' *Romani* nugh'e'.> The sentences *'ach mungDaj Sovlu'chu'be'. nger law' tu'lu'* aren't actually clear for someone who has no idea about the actual situation of *flamenco* research: There are or there were many theories?
It could be interpreted that way, yes. But the time context is *vatlh DIS poH wa'maH Hut*/the nineteenth century./ If the flamenco was invented in the nineteenth century, then people in the nineteenth century probably aren't the ones who don't clearly know its origins and have many theories. You don't say in which time people have don't know and theories, so all we know is that it's after the invention of the flamenco.
However, when you are explaining something and say: *Its origin wasn't known, there were many theories*, the logical thing to do is to add something like: "But today we know it" or "And it's still unknown today". So, since I didn't add anything like this in my Klingon text, the reader is likely to interpret it as present: *Its origin isn't known. There are many theories*. What I'm trying to say is that sometimes context comes from what isn't said rather than from what is actually said, and that what is expected in a particular context should be taken into account.
That's true. Context isn't only simple and explicit time references. It can be reasonable or common assumptions. Now, Klingons aren't computers, and they don't interpret their language procedurally. If you try to overspecify your time contexts, you'll just write an uncouth mess. It's a balancing act between making things clear and speaking elegantly. The trick for us is to remember that in translating into Klingon from other languages, we may lose some time context contained in the other languages' verbs that we didn't even notice was there. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
The only time context I could possibly piece together from this is from the word jImejpa', which isn't jImejpu'pa', so you're not describing something before I left (a competed act); you're describing something happening contemporaneous with some viewpoint, possibly before I leave (an imperfective act, presumably in the future) .
Yes, I'd noticed that *jImejpa'* could be the key for not interpreting it in the past, but I felt a little insecure. I wasn't sure if I should even use *-pu'* with *-pa'* or *-DI'* for the future, but probably I was influenced by the German *nachdem* (*after*), which always comes with the present perfect or the past perfect.
Now, Klingons aren't computers, and they don't interpret their language procedurally. If you try to overspecify your time contexts, you'll just write an uncouth mess. It's a balancing act between making things clear and speaking elegantly. The trick for us is to remember that in translating into Klingon from other languages, we may lose some time context contained in the other languages' verbs that we didn't even notice was there.
That's in fact the advice I was looking for. I didn't like the idea of overspecifying time context and that's why I was trying to understand time context in Klingon. Thank you!
Yes, you can use {-pu'} with {-DI'} but it's not common. In fact, I could only find one example: 'uQ wISoppu'DI' maja'chuq We will talk after dinner. (PK) You can also use {-ta'} with {-DI'} : lojmItDaj veghta'DI' jubbe'wI' yInqa'meH chegh 'e' botnIS qotar qeylIS HoHmeH qotar qeylIS SamnIS Still, Kotar cannot let a mortal Pass his gates and return alive, Kahless must be hunted down and killed. (PB) QIStaq 'emDaq jenchoH jul, yor DungDaq Salta'DI' tagh HarghchuqmeH poH The sun rises high behind the Kri'stak, When it rises over its top, It is time to do battle. (PB) I couldn't find any examples of {-pa'} with a Type 7 aspect suffix however. --Voragh ----------------------------------------Original Message---------------------------------------- From: luis.chaparro@web.de Yes, I'd noticed that *jImejpa'* could be the key for not interpreting it in the past, but I felt a little insecure. I wasn't sure if I should even use *-pu'* with *-pa'* or *-DI'* for the future, but probably I was influenced by the German *nachdem* (*after*), which always comes with the present perfect or the past perfect.
Voragh:
Yes, you can use {-pu'} with {-DI'} but it's not common. In fact, I could only find one example:
'uQ wISoppu'DI' maja'chuq We will talk after dinner. (PK)
You can also use {-ta'} with {-DI'} :
lojmItDaj veghta'DI' jubbe'wI' yInqa'meH chegh 'e' botnIS qotar qeylIS HoHmeH qotar qeylIS SamnIS Still, Kotar cannot let a mortal Pass his gates and return alive, Kahless must be hunted down and killed. (PB)
QIStaq 'emDaq jenchoH jul, yor DungDaq Salta'DI' tagh HarghchuqmeH poH The sun rises high behind the Kri'stak, When it rises over its top, It is time to do battle. (PB)
I couldn't find any examples of {-pa'} with a Type 7 aspect suffix however.
Thank you very much for this helpful information! If I understand you correctly, these are all canonical examples with *-DI'* and a perfective suffix, not just those that relate to the present / future? I mean, there is no canon of *-DI'* or *-pa'* with a perfective suffix, but in a past context? Are the canonical examples in the past always without perfective suffix? Thank you again!
I’d suggest that in all languages, communication is incomplete and leans heavily upon context. “Can you swim?” has a very different meaning on the deck of the Titanic right after hitting the iceberg. Klingon doesn’t provide the vague clue about time context that tense would provide. Instead, you anchor time with a stamp and make relative adjustments with the suffixes discussed here, or you don’t provide a time stamp, relying on context, or failing that, you communicate incompletely, hoping the listener guesses well. Mindful communication requires more work for the speaker and less guessing for the listener. Sent from my iPhone. charghwI’
On Jun 24, 2021, at 6:13 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
Voragh:
Yes, you can use {-pu'} with {-DI'} but it's not common. In fact, I could only find one example:
'uQ wISoppu'DI' maja'chuq We will talk after dinner. (PK)
You can also use {-ta'} with {-DI'} :
lojmItDaj veghta'DI' jubbe'wI' yInqa'meH chegh 'e' botnIS qotar qeylIS HoHmeH qotar qeylIS SamnIS Still, Kotar cannot let a mortal Pass his gates and return alive, Kahless must be hunted down and killed. (PB)
QIStaq 'emDaq jenchoH jul, yor DungDaq Salta'DI' tagh HarghchuqmeH poH The sun rises high behind the Kri'stak, When it rises over its top, It is time to do battle. (PB)
I couldn't find any examples of {-pa'} with a Type 7 aspect suffix however.
Thank you very much for this helpful information! If I understand you correctly, these are all canonical examples with *-DI'* and a perfective suffix, not just those that relate to the present / future? I mean, there is no canon of *-DI'* or *-pa'* with a perfective suffix, but in a past context? Are the canonical examples in the past always without perfective suffix? Thank you again! _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
These were all the examples I know of with any Type 7 (Aspect) suffix. Here are examples which Okrand translated in the English past tense: jemS tIy qIrq. loDHom jIHDI' qIrq qun vIqImchoH. James T. Kirk. I've followed his history since I was a boy. (ST5 notes) janmey ngo' lulo'lu'DI' pIj jabbI'ID nISpu' woj Older models were susceptible to radiation. S19 boq lucherDI' tlhIngan wo' romuluS Hov wo' je So'wI' cham Suqpu' tlhIngan wo'. Cloaking technology was gained through an alliance with the Romulan Star Empire... S33 tagha' pawpu' meb 'ach pumDI' ('etlh) Heghpu' qagh The guest finally arrived, but by then the gagh had died. (st.k 11/1999) DorDI' jar mejpu' At the end of the month, he/she left. ("When the month ended, he/she left"). (HQ 12.2) jIlay'DI' reH batlh jIpabchugh Qapla'meywIj Hoch vIta'ta' 'e' DaHar'a' Did you think that my word of honor would have carried me this far? PB jatlh 'e' mevDI' qeylIS, lop After Kahless's words, they celebrate PB jatlh 'e' mevDI' nuvpu' mejmoH ghaH ratlh be'nalDaj luqara' neH. After his last words, all were sent away, but his wife Lukara. PB tlheDDI' quvmoHmeH veng HeHDaq lutlha' SaD law' nuvpu' Thousands followed him To the edge of the city, To bid him farewell. PB pa' 'elDI' Duj 'Iw HIq pIw qagh pIw je lularghlu'chu' The smell of bloodwine and gagh Filled the barge upon entering. PB QIStaqDaq cholonDI' jIyIn DaH jIyIn je I am alive as I was when you left me at Kri'stak (PB) ruS cherDI' 'Iw After having sealed this bond in blood (PB) Qugh la'. tlhIngan Hol vIchenmoHDI', jatlhwI' wa'DIch ghaH. Commander Kruge. He was the first major speaker of the Klingon I devised. (ASM) HIja', 'ej jIHvo' nIHDI' jIbup. Yes, and when he stole from me I dumped (him). STID jagh HIvrup SuvwI' Haqpa' DIvI' qeSwI' The warrior was prepared to attack the enemy until the Federation advisor intervened. KGT Note that 1) sometimes a perfective suffix is attached to another verb in the sentence (not the one with {-DI'}) supplying the necessary past context; 2) sometimes {mevDI'} is used (which you've mentioned); 3) sometimes Okrand translates an English perfect with no perfect suffix in Klingon on any verb (e.g. {ruS cherDI' 'Iw} "After having sealed this bond in blood"). Sentences with {-DI"} are often translated in the present or future, ofent the immediate future. E.g. cha yIbaH qara'DI' qara'DI' cha yIbaH Fire the torpedoes at my command TKD Remember {-DI'} and {-pa'} refer to sequence of events not grammatical tense per se, which Klingon doesn't mark (as you well know by now). There are a few other examples, but I don't have time to sort them out now. Remind me later if you want to see them. --Voragh ----------------------------------------Original Message---------------------------------------- From: luis.chaparro@web.de Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 5:13 AM Thank you very much for this helpful information! If I understand you correctly, these are all canonical examples with *-DI'* and a perfective suffix, not just those that relate to the present / future? I mean, there is no canon of *-DI'* or *-pa'* with a perfective suffix, but in a past context? Are the canonical examples in the past always without perfective suffix? Thank you again! Voragh:
Yes, you can use {-pu'} with {-DI'} but it's not common. In fact, I could only find one example:
'uQ wISoppu'DI' maja'chuq We will talk after dinner. (PK)
You can also use {-ta'} with {-DI'} :
lojmItDaj veghta'DI' jubbe'wI' yInqa'meH chegh 'e' botnIS qotar qeylIS HoHmeH qotar qeylIS SamnIS Still, Kotar cannot let a mortal Pass his gates and return alive, Kahless must be hunted down and killed. (PB)
QIStaq 'emDaq jenchoH jul, yor DungDaq Salta'DI' tagh HarghchuqmeH poH The sun rises high behind the Kri'stak, When it rises over its top, It is time to do battle. (PB)
I couldn't find any examples of {-pa'} with a Type 7 aspect suffix however.
charghwI':
Mindful communication requires more work for the speaker and less guessing for the listener.
That's true. Thank you for your reply! Voragh:
There are a few other examples, but I don't have time to sort them out now. Remind me later if you want to see them.
Wow! Thank you for taking the time to provide this amazing amount of information. It's more than I could have wished for!
participants (6)
-
janSIy . -
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel -
Will Martin