As soon as I had tickled the dog
ben law' dog vIghajpu' 'ej dogvamvaD *spitha* vIpongta'. (qulHomvaD 'elaDya' mu' 'oH *spitha*'e'). motlh HatlhmajDaq vIpaw'DI' 'ej dogvetlh vIje'ta' 'ej vIqotlhta', 'oHvaD jIjatlhta': Hatlhvam Dalegh'a' *spitha* ? puHvam.. Sormeyvam.. wa' jaj Hoch Daghaj ! hahaha qunnoq ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta'
On 8/22/2016 8:18 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
ben law' dog vIghajpu' 'ej dogvamvaD *spitha* vIpongta'. (qulHomvaD 'elaDya' mu' 'oH *spitha*'e').
Your use of aspect has been turning into tense lately. Be careful! As far as your story goes, you didn't complete having a dog many years ago. *ben law' */dog/ *vIghaj* /many years ago I had a dog. /On the other hand, the aspect suffix on *vIpongta'* is appropriate.
motlh HatlhmajDaq vIpaw'DI' 'ej dogvetlh vIje'ta' 'ej vIqotlhta', 'oHvaD jIjatlhta':
You dropped the *-DI'* on those other dependent clauses. You also misspelled *paw*. *motlh HatlhmajDaq vIpawDI' 'ej */dog/*vetlh vIje'ta'DI' 'ej vIqotlhta'DI'* /usually when I arrived in our countryside and when I had fed that dog and when I had tickled it./ I probably would have put the *motlh* just before the *'oHvaD,* if I'm understanding your intention correctly.
Hatlhvam Dalegh'a' *spitha* ? puHvam.. Sormeyvam.. wa' jaj Hoch Daghaj !
QInlIj tlhaQlaw'ghach vIyajbe'. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 22.08.2016 um 15:04 schrieb SuStel:
Your use of aspect has been turning into tense lately. Be careful!
Yes, indeed. Basic rule to remember: if in doubt, do not use it :-)
ago. *ben law' */dog/ *vIghaj* /many years ago I had a dog. /On the other hand, the aspect suffix on *vIpongta'* is appropriate.
Although it could also be omitted: Using the -ta' suffix, it means that you have given the name to the dog, is was the action of labeling the name that is completed. Without the suffix, it means that you were naming your dog like this constantly. As a different topic (maybe someone else said before) I would suggest you use {targh} to talk about your dog, even though it's not a targ. It makes you think more in Klingon when writing (and it's easier to read for others as well - a "g" without "h" just looks unusual) It's as if I were talking about my σκύλος all the time :-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 8/22/2016 9:16 AM, Lieven wrote:
Am 22.08.2016 um 15:04 schrieb SuStel:
Your use of aspect has been turning into tense lately. Be careful!
Yes, indeed. Basic rule to remember: if in doubt, do not use it :-)
I'd say the basic rule is, if in doubt, ask someone else. Omitting an aspect suffix has a specific, anti-aspect meaning.
ago. *ben law' */dog/ *vIghaj* /many years ago I had a dog. /On the other hand, the aspect suffix on *vIpongta'* is appropriate.
Although it could also be omitted: Using the -ta' suffix, it means that you have given the name to the dog, is was the action of labeling the name that is completed. Without the suffix, it means that you were naming your dog like this constantly.
I said the aspect suffix was appropriate, because his meaning in this case is clear. Let's not confuse the issue. The aspect suffix should not be omitted in this sentence because he's trying to establish a time context of many years ago, in which he was in possession of a dog and had previously given that dog a name.
As a different topic (maybe someone else said before) I would suggest you use {targh} to talk about your dog, even though it's not a targ. It makes you think more in Klingon when writing (and it's easier to read for others as well - a "g" without "h" just looks unusual)
I disagree. Use a foreign word if the language has no native word that will do. A dog is not a targ, and is not close enough to a targ for Maltz to have translated *targh* as /dog./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 22.08.2016 um 15:40 schrieb SuStel:
Yes, indeed. Basic rule to remember: if in doubt, do not use it :-)
I'd say the basic rule is, if in doubt, ask someone else.
Yes, that is true. But is has become clear that many people use the aspect suffix way too often and most of the time incorrectly. Omitting this suffix may have a slightly different meaning, but it is "less wrong" than overly using it.
case is clear. Let's not confuse the issue. The aspect suffix should not be omitted in this sentence because he's trying to establish a time context of many years ago, in which he was in possession of a dog and had previously given that dog a name.
{ben law' targh vIghaj. ngugh 'oHvaD ghawran vIpong.} This sentence is completely correct, without needing any aspect suffix. I just don't want him to feel the need of using aspect suffixes because he is talking about - as you say - "a time context of many years ago".
I disagree. Use a foreign word if the language has no native word that will do. A dog is not a targ, and is not close enough to a targ for Maltz to have translated *targh* as /dog./
No need to agree. If we all had the same opinions, this group would be boring and senseless. ;-) -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 8/22/2016 10:34 AM, Lieven wrote:
{ben law' targh vIghaj. ngugh 'oHvaD ghawran vIpong.} This sentence is completely correct, without needing any aspect suffix.
Ah, I see, we're disagreeing about whether qunnoq was talking about having named his dog or what he called his dog. In English it is the difference between /name/ and /call./ If I /name/ something, that is a one-time event; if I /call/ something by a name, that is usually an ongoing occurrence. Either form would have been sensible in Klingon, but they would have meant different things. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel
QInlIj tlhaQlaw'ghach vIyajbe'.
tagha' dogwIj quH mojpu' Hatlhvetlh ; quHwIj mojbe'. meqvammo', tlhaQ lutvam ! SuStel:
Your use of aspect has been turning into tense lately. Be careful!
Many times I have a hard time *feeling* the difference between tense and aspect, thus the confusion. And the problem is, I can't find a way to overcome this problem. lieven:
I would suggest you use {targh} to talk about your dog
Believe it or not (this will sound strange), I find rather creepy to use {targh} for dog. Why ? Because klingons eat the heart of targs, and it gives me the creeps just to think of a dog being treated that way. qunnoq On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 5:41 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/22/2016 10:34 AM, Lieven wrote:
{ben law' targh vIghaj. ngugh 'oHvaD ghawran vIpong.} This sentence is completely correct, without needing any aspect suffix.
Ah, I see, we're disagreeing about whether qunnoq was talking about having named his dog or what he called his dog. In English it is the difference between name and call. If I name something, that is a one-time event; if I call something by a name, that is usually an ongoing occurrence.
Either form would have been sensible in Klingon, but they would have meant different things.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/22/2016 10:59 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
lieven:
I would suggest you use {targh} to talk about your dog Believe it or not (this will sound strange), I find rather creepy to use {targh} for dog. Why ? Because klingons eat the heart of targs, and it gives me the creeps just to think of a dog being treated that way.
/pig dog/ je rur targh. motlh Sajchaj Sopbe' Human. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 22.08.2016 um 16:59 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
Many times I have a hard time *feeling* the difference between tense and aspect, thus the confusion. And the problem is, I can't find a way to overcome this problem.
The confusion lies in the english translation. I'm not sure this helps, but I'll try anyway. The difference is the following: (please any linguistic expert forgive me if I'm not 100% accurate, it's partially done intentionally) Tense is about time, talking about things happening in the past, but also the future. Aspect talks about the completeness of an event: it may be ongoing or may be finished. As I wrote before, you can do nothing wrong when you only write without using the aspect. Now pay attention: Wehn you FEEL about the need of using an aspect suffix, think about the following points first: - Why do you use it? If you think "because it happened in the past", then drop it. - Is it a completed action? Do you want to focus on the completion of the action? is that important to mention? "I killed him." period. It's over. -> use Aspect suffix "I ate the pizza." It's gone now. -> use Aspect suffix If you are still not sure, of course you can ask someone, but if unsure, it's better to avoid it. That's never wrong. ------------ I won't give more examples for not confusing you, and I intentionally did not talk about the other aspect suffixes. You will learn it over time.
Believe it or not (this will sound strange), I find rather creepy to use {targh} for dog. Why ? Because klingons eat the heart of targs, and it gives me the creeps just to think of a dog being treated that way.
I understand. Actually, the Targ is more like a pig. But I like using the word anyway, since we have no word closer to the meaning of a dog. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 8/22/2016 11:30 AM, Lieven wrote:
- Is it a completed action? Do you want to focus on the completion of the action? is that important to mention? "I killed him." period. It's over. -> use Aspect suffix "I ate the pizza." It's gone now. -> use Aspect suffix
If you are still not sure, of course you can ask someone, but if unsure, it's better to avoid it. That's never wrong.
This is not true. By omitting an aspect suffix, you are explicitly saying that the action is not complete and not continuous. You cannot do this for an action you intend to mean is complete or continuous. Aspect suffixes are not used for optional emphasis. *pItSa' vISop* CANNOT be used for /I ate the pizza; it's gone now./ It can be used to mean /I (like to, tend to, often do, do in fact) eat pizza,/ but it EXPLICITLY means that pizza-eating is not completed or continuous. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
lieven:
If you think "because it happened in the past", then drop it.
good point. but the question now arises: usually the things which have happened in the past, haven't been completed as well ? On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 6:38 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/22/2016 11:30 AM, Lieven wrote:
- Is it a completed action? Do you want to focus on the completion of the action? is that important to mention? "I killed him." period. It's over. -> use Aspect suffix "I ate the pizza." It's gone now. -> use Aspect suffix
If you are still not sure, of course you can ask someone, but if unsure, it's better to avoid it. That's never wrong.
This is not true. By omitting an aspect suffix, you are explicitly saying that the action is not complete and not continuous. You cannot do this for an action you intend to mean is complete or continuous. Aspect suffixes are not used for optional emphasis.
pItSa' vISop CANNOT be used for I ate the pizza; it's gone now. It can be used to mean I (like to, tend to, often do, do in fact) eat pizza, but it EXPLICITLY means that pizza-eating is not completed or continuous.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/22/2016 11:52 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
lieven:
If you think "because it happened in the past", then drop it. good point. but the question now arises: usually the things which have happened in the past, haven't been completed as well ?
You're not building sentences based on logical truths; you're building context. Something may have been completed in the past, but are you TALKING about it being completed? For instance, *wa'Hu' pItSa' vISop*/yesterday, I ate pizza. /It says that pizza-eating happened yesterday, but in that sentence pizza-eating was NOT completed. It is a statement of general truth. General truths are not completed; the FACT of my eating pizza was not completed. Pizza-eating happened yesterday. But then there's *wa'Hu' pItSa' vISoppu'*/yesterday, I ate pizza./ English makes no distinction, but it means something different in Klingon. Yesterday there was pizza-eating, and I'm telling you that I ate and finished eating it. This is not a general truth; this is describing a specific event. Yesterday, pizza-eating happened and completed. The former version might be an answer to the question *wa'Hu' nuq DaSop */what did you eat yesterday?/ The latter to the question *wa'Hu' nuq Data'pu'*/what did you do yesterday?/ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 22.08.2016 um 17:38 schrieb SuStel:
This is not true. By omitting an aspect suffix, you are explicitly saying that the action is not complete and not continuous. You cannot do this for an action you intend to mean is complete or continuous. Aspect suffixes are not used for optional emphasis.
*pItSa' vISop* CANNOT be used for /I ate the pizza; it's gone now./ It can be used to mean /I (like to, tend to, often do, do in fact) eat pizza,/ but it EXPLICITLY means that pizza-eating is not completed or continuous.
Right. That's what I said. Please note again what I said before my message: "please any linguistic expert forgive me if I'm not 100% accurate, it's partially done intentionally " I'm not saying that {pItSa' vISop} DOES mean that it's completed. What I said is that you do not need to say {vISopta'} because it's in the past, what most people do: {wa'Hu' tach vI'elta', pa' loD vIleghpu' 'ej jIjatlhpu': nuq DaSoppu'? jangpu' vay': targh vISoppu'. jatlhpu' latlh: jISoppu'be', 'ach jItlhutlhpu'} - this is the incorrect use of the aspect suffix for past tense. "I ate pizza yesterday" is {wa'Hu' pItSa' vISop}. It does NOT mean that it's complete, nor that it's continuous. And if one likes to go even more into nitpicking, I am sure that it is correct to add a time frame: {qaStaHvIS wa' rep nuq DaSop} "What have you eaten during one hour". Anything eaten during that hour is completed eaten. Anything you eat is completed after you swallowed it. Aspect is not mandatory. You wanted to not confuse the students. I tried to keep it simple, suggesting beginenrs avoid aspect until they feel comfortable with it and NOT use it as tense. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 8/22/2016 12:26 PM, Lieven wrote:
Aspect is not mandatory. You wanted to not confuse the students. I tried to keep it simple, suggesting beginenrs avoid aspect until they feel comfortable with it and NOT use it as tense.
Telling students to leave off a suffix that CANNOT be left off when they try to say something that requires it is NOT the correct advice. Your advice amounts to, "Don't say things that require aspect, so you don't have to use the suffixes." The correct approach is to understand aspect FIRST, then learn when to use it or not use it. If a student wants to translate, "I wrote a message and then sent it," which is a reasonable thing to want to say, they CANNOT omit aspect. But that's what you told them to do. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
thank you very much SuStel and lieven for taking the time to explain all this. perhaps -slowly- I'm beginning to understand the difference between tense and aspect, although -currently-, I feel it is a subtle one. I think the way to go, is try and use aspect in simple sentences and work one's way, from that point up. Another good question though, is this: If I'm writing a passage, which clearly concerns a number of completed events, do I need to repeat the {-pu'} on every verb, or just once or twice suffices ? qunnoq On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:28 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/22/2016 12:26 PM, Lieven wrote:
Aspect is not mandatory. You wanted to not confuse the students. I tried to keep it simple, suggesting beginenrs avoid aspect until they feel comfortable with it and NOT use it as tense.
Telling students to leave off a suffix that CANNOT be left off when they try to say something that requires it is NOT the correct advice.
Your advice amounts to, "Don't say things that require aspect, so you don't have to use the suffixes."
The correct approach is to understand aspect FIRST, then learn when to use it or not use it. If a student wants to translate, "I wrote a message and then sent it," which is a reasonable thing to want to say, they CANNOT omit aspect. But that's what you told them to do.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/22/2016 1:39 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If I'm writing a passage, which clearly concerns a number of completed events, do I need to repeat the {-pu'} on every verb, or just once or twice suffices ?
If you're actually describing the completion of events, use a completion suffix every time. Again, it's not important whether you're describing events that have been completed at some point. What's important is whether the particular action you're describing is completed as it happens at that point in the sentence. Don't be confused by the English tendency to narrate stories in the past tense. Klingon does not do this. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
What's important is whether the particular action you're describing is completed as it happens at that point in the sentence.
oh-my-god ! this is perfect ! Now I understand the mistake I had been doing ; while I was writting, I was wondering not with regards to "was the action completed then ? (at that point in the story)" ; I was wondering "is the action completed now (at the time I'm writting the sentence)". Things seem to have become a lot clearer. I'll take this new-found knowledge for a spin and see how it goes. qunnoq ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On 22 Aug 2016 8:52 p.m., "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/22/2016 1:39 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If I'm writing a passage, which clearly concerns a number of completed events, do I need to repeat the {-pu'} on every verb, or just once or twice suffices ?
If you're actually describing the completion of events, use a completion suffix every time.
Again, it's not important whether you're describing events that have been completed at some point. What's important is whether the particular action you're describing is completed as it happens at that point in the sentence.
Don't be confused by the English tendency to narrate stories in the past tense. Klingon does not do this.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 22.08.2016 um 19:39 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
thank you very much SuStel and lieven for taking the time to explain all this.
perhaps -slowly- I'm beginning to understand the difference between tense and aspect, although -currently-, I feel it is a subtle one.
Well, the special thing is that you can also use aspect for events in the future. For instance to say something like "I hope that I will have killed the man by tomorrow evening" you can use the aspect suffix. {qaSpa' wa'leS ram loD vIHoHta' 'e' vItul} NOW I hope (a non-contunious and not ended situation) that at the moment called "tommorow evening" (an event in the future) the action of killing is over (hence the -ta') suffix. Is that understandable? (@mayqel) Is that correct? (@SuStel)
If I'm writing a passage, which clearly concerns a number of completed events, do I need to repeat the {-pu'} on every verb, or just once or twice suffices ?
You need it depending on how the verb is "going on": Here's an example using all the suffixes. I hope it works like this: {Soppu'mo' Qong vavwI', 'ach vIvemmoHta'be'mo' QongtaH ghaH.} "My father sleeps because he has finished eaten. But because I did not wake him up, he ist still sleeping." -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
On 8/22/2016 2:53 PM, Lieven wrote:
For instance to say something like "I hope that I will have killed the man by tomorrow evening" you can use the aspect suffix.
{qaSpa' wa'leS ram loD vIHoHta' 'e' vItul}
NOW I hope (a non-contunious and not ended situation) that at the moment called "tommorow evening" (an event in the future) the action of killing is over (hence the -ta') suffix.
Is that understandable? (@mayqel) Is that correct? (@SuStel)
Let's drop the *'e' vItul* so that we don't get into questions of whether I hope by tomorrow evening or I will have killed the man by tomorrow evening. Besides, the second verb in an SAO is prohibited from taking aspect suffixes. *qaS'pa' wa'leS ram loD vIHoHta' */before tomorrow night occurs I will have killed the man/ This looks right to me. If the *-ta'* had been left off I'd read it more as a general declaration of activity: I'll be killing men up to tomorrow night. And the *qaSpa'* doesn't need a completion aspect because we're not talking about the completion of night occurring. By the way, your original with *'e' vItul* doesn't necessarily mean that the hoping happens now (assuming you mean the tomorrow night part to apply to the killing). Maybe I hoped two weeks ago that I'd have killed the man by tomorrow night. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Am 22.08.2016 um 19:39 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
If I'm writing a passage, which clearly concerns a number of completed events, do I need to repeat the {-pu'} on every verb, or just once or twice suffices ?
I just answered this, but I found a different answer: In Klingon, repetition is no problem at all. We try to avoid it in English, but in Klingon is quite usual - and even mandatory - to repeat syllable where needed: {pItSa' vIje'ta', vIvutta' 'ej vISopta'.} Anyone disagree? -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
lieven:
Is that understandable? (@mayqel)
yes ! I think I'm beginning to understand the theory of using aspect in klingon. I will apply all this in my next story and see how it goes. I will have this question in mind: "at the time the sentence is taking place, is the event completed or not ?". and we'll see how it goes. DaH, jIQong ! Quvar SuStel je, tuQaHta'' 'e' bonIDmo', Satlho'. qunnoq ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On 22 Aug 2016 10:02 p.m., "Lieven" <levinius@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 22.08.2016 um 19:39 schrieb mayqel qunenoS:
If I'm writing a passage, which clearly concerns a number of completed events, do I need to repeat the {-pu'} on every verb, or just once or twice suffices ?
I just answered this, but I found a different answer: In Klingon, repetition is no problem at all. We try to avoid it in English, but in Klingon is quite usual - and even mandatory - to repeat syllable where needed:
{pItSa' vIje'ta', vIvutta' 'ej vISopta'.}
Anyone disagree?
-- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Am 22.08.2016 um 16:41 schrieb SuStel:
Ah, I see, we're disagreeing about whether qunnoq was talking about having named his dog or what he called his dog.
Yes, indeed. That's why I tried to say in my previous message about the difference in using the aspect suffix or not. -- Lieven L. Litaer aka Quvar valer 'utlh Grammarian of the KLI http://www.facebook.com/Klingonteacher http://www.klingonwiki.net
participants (3)
-
Lieven -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel