Suppose I write: {loSmaH wa' ben jIboghpu'} for "I am 41 years old". Literally though, the klingon goes "41 years ago I have been born" i.e. 41 years ago my "being born" has been completed. Lets forget this for the moment.. If I write {wa'Hu' pItSa' vISoppu'}, this means that "one day ago my eating the pizza has been completed". But I could have eaten this pizza many days ago, and yesterday is just another day during which my eating of the pizza continues to be completed. So, can't the {loSmaH wa' ben jIboghpu'} be interpreted to mean, that I am in fact older than 41, and that it is just that 41 years ago, my birth (which took place way earlier) remains completed ? So, why not write instead {loSmaH wa' ben jIbogh}, for "41 years ago I am born", thus avoiding the ambiguity ? ~ mayqel qunen'oS korriban DungDaq 'al sith Degh Hochlogh wew Hurghchu'ghach jul
On 12/21/2018 9:15 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Suppose I write: {loSmaH wa' ben jIboghpu'} for "I am 41 years old".
Literally though, the klingon goes "41 years ago I have been born" i.e. 41 years ago my "being born" has been completed.
Lets forget this for the moment..
If I write {wa'Hu' pItSa' vISoppu'}, this means that "one day ago my eating the pizza has been completed". But I could have eaten this pizza many days ago, and yesterday is just another day during which my eating of the pizza continues to be completed.
So, can't the {loSmaH wa' ben jIboghpu'} be interpreted to mean, that I am in fact older than 41, and that it is just that 41 years ago, my birth (which took place way earlier) remains completed ?
So, why not write instead {loSmaH wa' ben jIbogh}, for "41 years ago I am born", thus avoiding the ambiguity ?
You are interpreting Klingon *-pu'* as if it were English present perfect tense, which it is not. English present perfect tense means that I'm talking about a time right now, and as of right now, the thing I'm talking about happened in the past. /Happened in the past/ tells you /when/ something happened; that means it's /tense./ Klingon doesn't have verb tenses. Klingon *-pu'* means that, whenever an action happens, it is completed. The action is viewed as a complete unit, a whole that has no visible internal temporal flow. *loSmaH ben jIboghpu'.* Forty years ago, the action *bogh* occurred and was completed. When you do not use perfective or continuous aspects, the verb is not perfective and not continuous. You're not just not mentioning whether it's those things; it's specifically not those things. *loSmaH ben jIbogh* means that you're in that moment of being born forty years ago. The *bogh* is not yet complete and not an ongoing action. So no, you can't use *loSmaH ben jIboghpu'* to mean you're 42 or 50 or anything like that. *-pu'* doesn't mean /sometime before the current time context;/ it means /viewed as a completed whole./ Okrand says in /The Klingon Dictionary/ that for consistency he will translate Klingon perfective into English present perfect tense, and then he only does it about half the time. We get lots of counterexamples, like *yaS vImojpu'*/I became an officer/ (the becoming is done),//*De''e' vItlhapnISpu'*/I needed to get the INFORMATION /(the need is over), *vIneHpu'*/I wanted them/ (the wanting is over), *qaja'pu'*/I told you/ (the telling is complete), *Qaw''eghpu'* /he/she destroyed himself/herself/ (the destruction is complete). There are more. So don't be fooled into thinking that *-pu'* is always translated by /have/had/has verbed,/ or that it means exactly what those English phrases mean. English does not have verbal perfective; Klingon does. Klingon does not have perfect tenses; English does. They are not the same thing. *wa'Hu' pItSa' chab vISoppu'*/Yesterday I ate a pizza./ The eating happened yesterday, and it was completed. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:15 AM mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Suppose I write: {loSmaH wa' ben jIboghpu'} for "I am 41 years old".
Literally though, the klingon goes "41 years ago I have been born" i.e. 41 years ago my "being born" has been completed.
Lets forget this for the moment..
If I write {wa'Hu' pItSa' vISoppu'}, this means that "one day ago my eating the pizza has been completed". But I could have eaten this pizza many days ago, and yesterday is just another day during which my eating of the pizza continues to be completed.
I remember someone asked Okrand about something similar to this, and he replied that using {-pu'} with a time-stamp adverbial implies that the completion occured at the time of the time stamp. Sadly, I am having trouble finding the exact canon for this at the moment.
I found this in my notes from qep’a’ wa’maHDIch (2003): (DloraH, 9/16/2003): Once in a while here we would have discussions about when exactly the point of completion occurs in relation to a timestamp or {-taHvIS}. [E.g.] {wejHu' vIHoHta'}. Did I kill him BEFORE three days ago? (possibly) Could I have done the killing ON that day (three days ago)? Yes. Some people (including myself), thought that the {-ta'} had to be true at any point in time of that day. At one second after midnight, {-ta'} would mean that the killing took place before three days ago. But without specifying that precise time, you have until 23:59 on that day for the event to become {-ta'}. Some examples of {-pu’} used with a time stamp: tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH loS bong QongmeH qItI'nga' Duj tI'ang ghompu' DIvI' 'ejDo' 'entepray' A sleeper ship of this [K'Tinga] class, the T'Ong, was encountered in the 24th century by the USS Enterprise. S15 HovpoH Hut vagh cha' wa' vI' jav Dujvam 'aghlu'pu' 'ach Qaw'lu'pu' [This ship was demonstrated on Stardate 9521.6 but it was destroyed. (untranslated)] S33 DaH nuq ta'pu' Day joH What has Lady Di done now? RTb DaHjaj romuluSngan vIHoHpu' Today I killed a Romulan. (st.k 6/97) … and one with {-ta’} : wejHu' qoSlIj Dalopta', qar'a'? (MO's FaceBook text to Andre, 2/11/2014) -- Voragh ___________________________________________________________________________ From: nIqolay Q Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 9:59 AM On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:15 AM mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: Suppose I write: {loSmaH wa' ben jIboghpu'} for "I am 41 years old". Literally though, the klingon goes "41 years ago I have been born" i.e. 41 years ago my "being born" has been completed. Lets forget this for the moment.. If I write {wa'Hu' pItSa' vISoppu'}, this means that "one day ago my eating the pizza has been completed". But I could have eaten this pizza many days ago, and yesterday is just another day during which my eating of the pizza continues to be completed. I remember someone asked Okrand about something similar to this, and he replied that using {-pu'} with a time-stamp adverbial implies that the completion occured at the time of the time stamp. Sadly, I am having trouble finding the exact canon for this at the moment.
Sadly, I am having trouble finding the exact canon for this at the moment.
You may be thinking about this: https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/August/msg00114.html Bit hard to read there, so I've pasted it below, as well. Short version: Given given the sentence DaHjaj may'Duj mutlhta' tlhIngan QI'.* #1. Does it require that the Klingon military began construction of a battleship and built it to completion all today? #2. Does it mean that the construction was completed today but could have commenced at any time? #3. Does it mean that the construction is complete today, but could have been completed before today? Maltz' answers Regarding aspect, Maltz was a little less helpful (or a little less clear). Of your three questions about what the sentence really means, he said no to #1 and yes to #2 (though he pointed out that if the construction of the ship did start and end the same day, that's included in #2). For #3, he said if the <DaHjaj> wasn't there, it would mean that as of the time of speaking the sentence, they would have finished the construction (with no indication as to how long before that they finished), and with the <DaHjaj>, it's #2. My guess is this will lead to more questions. Maltz is always up for controversy. Regarding aspect, Maltz was a little less helpful (or a little less clear). Of your three questions about what the sentence really means, he said no to #1 and yes to #2 (though he pointed out that if the construction of the ship did start and end the same day, that's included in #2). For #3, he said if the <DaHjaj> wasn't there, it would mean that as of the time of speaking the sentence, they would have finished the construction (with no indication as to how long before that they finished), and with the <DaHjaj>, it's #2. My guess is this will lead to more questions. Maltz is always up for controversy. *The original sentence used {lumutlhta'}, treating {QI'} as plural. I used Maltz' suggested edit here to avoid confusion. ________________________________ From: Qov <robyn@flyingstart.ca> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 00:44 To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: [Tlhingan-hol] Marc on Aspect Part of me doesn't even want to post this, because the bitterness of the argument about aspect made me feel that I had to betray someone with every sentence I wrote in Klingon. I don't want that to start up again. I told my husband, "I haven't even had time to read Marc's answer carefully and compare it to the question to see who is going to be gloating and who is going to accuse me of twisting the question, or whatever will happen." He said, "Don't bother doing that. Just post it and let them decide." Please embrace this new Klingon information and each other, and don't make me regret bribing Maltz for this information. If Maltz is really in a good mood, lead with this next one. He'll help the whole group--this is a big question--with understanding aspect. As people bring knowledge of aspect from extra reading and other languages, and take apart TKD with tweezers, we have come up against a divide. I'm going to characterize it with a couple of disputed meanings. <DaHjaj may'Duj lumutlhta' tlhIngan QI'.> It might be translated as "Today the Klingon military have constructed a battleship." Does it require that the Klingon military began construction of a battleship and built it to completion all today? Does it mean that the construction was completed today but could have commenced at any time? Does it mean that the construction is complete today, but could have been completed before today? We're ready for some more depth on how Klingons treat aspect, more examples, how does it interact with the negative, what uses sound right and wrong. Marc replied: Regarding aspect, Maltz was a little less helpful (or a little less clear). Of your three questions about what the sentence really means, he said no to #1 and yes to #2 (though he pointed out that if the construction of the ship did start and end the same day, that's included in #2). For #3, he said if the <DaHjaj> wasn't there, it would mean that as of the time of speaking the sentence, they would have finished the construction (with no indication as to how long before that they finished), and with the <DaHjaj>, it's #2. My guess is this will lead to more questions. Maltz is always up for controversy. On another topic, Maltz thought it was interesting that the verb in the sample sentence began with the prefix <lu->. He would have used no prefix, assuming that <QI'> referred to the military establishment in general. On the other hand, if it's expressing that several distinct Klingon military organizations or branches collaborated in the effort, the <lu-> makes sense. (Has Maltz opened another can of <gharghmey>?) ==== So I haven't even referred back and forth sufficiently to my question yet to fully parse that. I have two days off now, then work 12 hours a day again until I fly to qep'a' on the 26th. I'll just note that we now appear to know that Klingons use the American-style 'group is singular.' <'oH mutlh QI>, and not <'oH lumutlh>. cf "BP regret ..." vs. "Microsoft is ..." Lets figure out what the more questions should be in a few days so Marc has time to think about them before qep'a'. Sorry if my question was not the absolute best it could have been. I did try to gather some consensus on what we needed to know. - Qov ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 16:59 To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] jIbogh vs jIboghpu' and a pizza On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:15 AM mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: Suppose I write: {loSmaH wa' ben jIboghpu'} for "I am 41 years old". Literally though, the klingon goes "41 years ago I have been born" i.e. 41 years ago my "being born" has been completed. Lets forget this for the moment.. If I write {wa'Hu' pItSa' vISoppu'}, this means that "one day ago my eating the pizza has been completed". But I could have eaten this pizza many days ago, and yesterday is just another day during which my eating of the pizza continues to be completed. I remember someone asked Okrand about something similar to this, and he replied that using {-pu'} with a time-stamp adverbial implies that the completion occured at the time of the time stamp. Sadly, I am having trouble finding the exact canon for this at the moment.
Fascinating info.. However, there is something else I begun to wonder. Suppose I want to say to someone "I have never asked for your help". With the important detail being, that not only have I not ever asked for his help, but I'm not going to begin asking for it now either.. So, on one hand, I want to say "I have never asked for your help", on the other hand though, my "not asking for his help" still continues.. So, what do I write ? {not QaHlIj vIpoQ} ? {not QaHlIj vIpoQpu'} ? {QaHlIj vIpoQpu'be'} ? {QaHlIj vIpoQbe'pu'} ? Is there any difference between these choices ? ~ mayqel *I love maltz* qunen'oS
Am 22.12.2018 um 16:27 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
So, what do I write ? {not QaHlIj vIpoQ} ? {not QaHlIj vIpoQpu'} ? {QaHlIj vIpoQpu'be'} ? {QaHlIj vIpoQbe'pu'} ?
Is there any difference between these choices ?
Surely, and here I would even suggest the suffix {-ta'} bbeacuse that implies intention whereas {-pu'} always has the notion that it just happened. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On 12/22/2018 10:55 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Am 22.12.2018 um 16:27 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
So, what do I write ? {not QaHlIj vIpoQ} ? {not QaHlIj vIpoQpu'} ? {QaHlIj vIpoQpu'be'} ? {QaHlIj vIpoQbe'pu'} ?
Is there any difference between these choices ?
Surely, and here I would even suggest the suffix {-ta'} bbeacuse that implies intention whereas {-pu'} always has the notion that it just happened.
*-pu'* is neutral as to intention. You might have intended it, or you might not have. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 12/22/2018 10:55 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Surely, and here I would even suggest the suffix {-ta'} bbeacuse that implies intention whereas {-pu'} always has the notion that it just happened.
Am 22.12.2018 um 17:20 schrieb SuStel:
*-pu'* is neutral as to intention. You might have intended it, or you might not have.
I don't agree, at least not interely. I see your point, but you cannot say that {-pu'} is always absolutely neutral to intention. While {-ta'} is explained to be used as a intention, TKD says that if there was no intention, {-pu'} is used. So, yes, TKD does not exclude {-pu'} being used WITH intention, but as it can have the notion of NO intention, the distinction can be made by choosing {-ta'} - which is surely what mayqel was talking about: "I never asked you" really sounds like "it was my intention not to ask you, and I have intentionally achieved not asking you: {not qaghelta'.} TKD 4.2.7: {luHoHta'} "they have killed him/her" ({HoH} "kill") [...] sentence above could not be used if the killing were the result of a general attack not intended to kill a specific person or if the killing were an accident. In such cases, {-pu'} would be used: {luHoHpu'} "they have killed him/her" -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/Aspect
On 12/22/2018 12:20 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
On 12/22/2018 10:55 AM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
Surely, and here I would even suggest the suffix {-ta'} bbeacuse that implies intention whereas {-pu'} always has the notion that it just happened.
Am 22.12.2018 um 17:20 schrieb SuStel:
*-pu'* is neutral as to intention. You might have intended it, or you might not have.
I don't agree, at least not interely. I see your point, but you cannot say that {-pu'} is always absolutely neutral to intention.
While {-ta'} is explained to be used as a intention, TKD says that if there was no intention, {-pu'} is used.
So, yes, TKD does not exclude {-pu'} being used WITH intention, but as it can have the notion of NO intention, the distinction can be made by choosing {-ta'}
Yes. TKD does not exclude *-pu'* being used with intention. TKD also says, The suffix {-taH} <continuous> can be used whether there is a know goal or not. {-lI',} on the other hand, can be used only when there is an implied goal. It is possible to consider {-lI'} a <continuous> counterpart of {-ta',} and {-taH} a <continuous> counterpart of {-pu'.} As *-pu'* is the counterpart of the continuous suffix that can be used whether there is a known goal or not, it follows that *-pu'* can be used whether there is an intention or not. Combine this with the fact that TKD mentions not a whiff of anything about *-pu'* not allowed when there is intention, and you must come to the conclusion that *-pu'* is neutral as to intention. And then there are sentences like *qaja'pu'* /I told you/ (surely, I told you intentionally... this line comes from Kruge who makes a big point about his intentions), *nuHotlhpu''a'*/Have they scanned us? /(Are you suggesting they scanned us by accident?), and *SutlhtaHvIS chaH DIHIvpu'*/While they were negotiating, we attacked them/ (was our attack unintentional?). Okrand is quite happy to use *-pu'* where intention is obviously implied. Therefore, suggesting that *-pu'* implies lack of intention cannot be correct.
- which is surely what mayqel was talking about: "I never asked you" really sounds like "it was my intention not to ask you, and I have intentionally achieved not asking you: {not qaghelta'.}
And there's nothing wrong with using *-ta'* here. But you didn't say using *-ta'* would be a nice way to express this; you said "*-pu'* always has the notion that it just happened." That's not true.
TKD 4.2.7:
{luHoHta'} "they have killed him/her" ({HoH} "kill")
[...] sentence above could not be used if the killing were the result of a general attack not intended to kill a specific person or if the killing were an accident. In such cases, {-pu'} would be used:
{luHoHpu'} "they have killed him/her"
This is the reverse of the point you're trying to make. It says if the action is not intended, you can't use *-ta'.* It doesn't say if the action is intended, you can't — or even shouldn't — use *-pu'.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 12/22/2018 10:27 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Suppose I want to say to someone "I have never asked for your help". With the important detail being, that not only have I not ever asked for his help, but I'm not going to begin asking for it now either..
So, on one hand, I want to say "I have never asked for your help", on the other hand though, my "not asking for his help" still continues..
So, what do I write ? {not QaHlIj vIpoQ} ? {not QaHlIj vIpoQpu'} ? {QaHlIj vIpoQpu'be'} ? {QaHlIj vIpoQbe'pu'} ?
Is there any difference between these choices ?
/I have never asked for your help/ is saying that a particular completed action did not occur. It does not consider whether the hypothetical action is still not occurring. *not QaHlIj vItlhobpu' / not QaHlIj vItlhobta'*/I have never asked for your help./ *DaH QaHlIj vItlhobbe'*/I do not ask for your help now./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 12/22/2018 10:27 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
So, on one hand, I want to say "I have never asked for your help", on the other hand though, my "not asking for his help" still continues..
I believe that you are still thinking too much from the English (or greek) point of view. The aspect suffixes indicate whether the action is completed, not when it happened. If you say {not qaghelpu'} then it's OVER. It means that the situation has changed, or at least finished. As you wrote above, you do not intend to ask in the future either, so it cannot be over, it's still going on. My suggestion is to leave any aspect suffix off, {not qaghel} and to emphasize, maybe add {-taH}: {not qaghel, 'ej not qagheltaH} "I never asked you, and I never will." Terrans tend to overly use {-pu'} :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery
On 12/22/2018 12:26 PM, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
On 12/22/2018 10:27 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
So, on one hand, I want to say "I have never asked for your help", on the other hand though, my "not asking for his help" still continues..
I believe that you are still thinking too much from the English (or greek) point of view. The aspect suffixes indicate whether the action is completed, not when it happened.
This is correct.
If you say {not qaghelpu'} then it's OVER. It means that the situation has changed, or at least finished. As you wrote above, you do not intend to ask in the future either, so it cannot be over, it's still going on.
This is not correct. That *not* makes this a hypothetical action. It's a kind of irrealis. It's pointing to a hypothetical completed action, and saying "except it didn't happen."/I asked for your help/ (a completed action)/... nope, that never happened./ This sentence isn't expressing a true state; it's expressing an irrealis. This is what's tripping you up. Think of the scope of the *-pu':* you're thinking of it as *[not qaghel]pu'*//(my never asking you is completed); but it's really *not [qaghelpu']* (my completed asking you never occurred).
My suggestion is to leave any aspect suffix off,
{not qaghel}
This means /I never ask you./ (*ghel* is the wrong verb here; *tlhob* is the verb used for making requests; *ghel* is for asking for information.) It might be used to express a general state, and could very well be appropriate for the situation under consideration, but it doesn't say the same thing as *not qaghelpu'*/I have never asked you./
and to emphasize, maybe add {-taH}:
{not qaghel, 'ej not qagheltaH} "I never asked you, and I never will."
This would be better translated as /I never ask you, and I continue to not ask you./ It's redundant, and any notion of the future isn't really implied. If someone said *not qaghelpu' 'ej qaghelbe'taH,* I'd understand this as the original intention: /I've never asked you and I continue not to ask you./ If talking about the future were necessary, I'd put in some kind of time expression. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I'm missing lieven's message, which contains the following part: "- which is surely what mayqel was talking about: "I never asked you" really sounds like "it was my intention not to ask you, and I have intentionally achieved not asking you: {not qaghelta'.}" Was it accidentally sent off-list ? ~ mayqel
participants (6)
-
Felix Malmenbeck -
Lieven L. Litaer -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel