(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
On 4/4/2022 7:58 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
1. If I'm narrating events of the past using "historical present", i.e. describing them as they happen, then no perfective is used. 2. If I'm looking back from the present on actions performed and completed, then I use perfective. 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. 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: 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:
All good. I don't think I'd personally split them up this way, but I don't disagree with anything here.
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.
This one I don't agree with. The words /used to/ aren't necessary to avoid perfective; they're just a convenient, but incomplete, test to see if you're thinking in terms of perfective or not. Besides, I don't see why /the water has often been hot/ couldn't be said as /the water often used to be hot./ So I don't think you're looking at /used to/ in quite the right way. I wouldn't use perfective on either of these. Even if you're describing water that was only hot two or three times, you're still describing the being hot, not a completed action of being hot. *'op ret**tuj bIQ*/in the past, the water has been hot; /*'op ret**pIj tuj bIQ*/in the past, the water has often been hot./ Putting the English translations into the present perfect tense is a feature of English, not Klingon. Klingon doesn't mark verbs for "past action that is relevant now" the way English present perfect does. You could just as easily translate these *'op ret tuj bIQ*/in the past, the water was hot/ and *'op ret pIj tuj bIQ*/in the past, the water was often hot/ and still have a perfectly correct translation. The concept of "past action, relevant now" doesn't exist in the Klingon original. (By the way, I believe *pa'logh* refers to the past as a whole, not to some point in the past, which is *'op ret.* To refer to some action taking place at the time *pa'logh* makes very little sense, as if the whole of the past was just one little dot on a timeline.) -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (2)
-
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel