Time elements and *qaStaHvIS*, continuous and perfective aspect
In my last text I wrote: *poH nI' bov chep wISIQpu' 'ewropngan* (I've changed *yIn* for *SIQ* following the recommendations). I have a few questions: 1. Thinking about this sentence, I wasn't sure if I should have said: *qaStaHvIS poH nI'*. I don't think so, because if I understand it correctly, *poH nI'* acts as a time element, just like *DaHjaj*, *Hoghvam*, *cha' ben*, *rep cha'* or *jar cha' DIS 2022*. All these elements don't need *qaStaHvIS*, right? 2. Since *poH nI'* expresses itself a duration, I'm not sure if there is any difference between *poH nI'* and *qaStaHvIS poH nI'*. When should I use the latter, if ever? 3. In Spanish and German, and probably in English too, there is a difference between *this week* and *during this week*. I would use *during this week* if I wanted to speak about something that happened all the time or several times among this week, but not if I only wanted to situate an singular event in the timeline (e.g. I wouldn't say *During this week I've eaten pizza* if I only ate it once and I just wanted to say when I did it). Could we render this difference in Klingon using *qaStaHvIS Hoghvam* instead of just *Hoghvam*? Or has it nothing to do with this? 4. All of this led me to a question I've wanted to ask for a long time. In Spanish (and in English I think) we can say something like: *It had been raining all day*, *It has been raining all day* / *It was raining all day*, *It will have been raining all day* expressing a continuous *and* perfective action. Since aspect suffixes belong to the same type in Klingon, how could I express this? Simply by not expressing the continuous aspect, for example? Thank you!
On 2/20/2022 8:12 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
In my last text I wrote: ** (I've changed *yIn* for *SIQ* following the recommendations). I have a few questions:
1. Thinking about this sentence, I wasn't sure if I should have said: *qaStaHvIS poH nI'*. I don't think so, because if I understand it correctly, *poH nI'* acts as a time element, just like *DaHjaj*, *Hoghvam*, *cha' ben*, *rep cha'* or *jar cha' DIS 2022*. All these elements don't need *qaStaHvIS*, right?
2. Since *poH nI'* expresses itself a duration, I'm not sure if there is any difference between *poH nI'* and *qaStaHvIS poH nI'*. When should I use the latter, if ever?
3. In Spanish and German, and probably in English too, there is a difference between *this week* and *during this week*. I would use *during this week* if I wanted to speak about something that happened all the time or several times among this week, but not if I only wanted to situate an singular event in the timeline (e.g. I wouldn't say *During this week I've eaten pizza* if I only ate it once and I just wanted to say when I did it). Could we render this difference in Klingon using *qaStaHvIS Hoghvam* instead of just *Hoghvam*? Or has it nothing to do with this?
All three of your points are wrapped up in the same answer. The difference between *poH nI'* and *qaStaHvIS poH nI'* is the same as the difference between /this week/ and /during this week./ One names a time in which something happened; the other names a time over whose duration an action occurred continuously or potentially repeatedly. Using *poH nI'* is extremely vague: you're saying that there was once a long period of time, and on the occasion of that long period, something happened. It doesn't mean that something happened for a long time — for that, use *qaStaHvIS poH nI'.*
4. All of this led me to a question I've wanted to ask for a long time. In Spanish (and in English I think) we can say something like: *It had been raining all day*, *It has been raining all day* / *It was raining all day*, *It will have been raining all day* expressing a continuous *and* perfective action. Since aspect suffixes belong to the same type in Klingon, how could I express this? Simply by not expressing the continuous aspect, for example?
Those sentences do not express perfective. /It had been raining all day./ English past perfect progressive tense. /It has been raining all day./ English present perfect progressive tense. /It was raining all day./ English past progressive tense. /It will have been raining all day./ English future perfect progressive tense. All of these are progressive, or continuous, and therefore not perfective. /Perfective/ means an action is viewed as a whole, without reference to its internal flow. English progressive tenses do reference the internal flow of actions: they tell you that the action occurred in an ongoing manner. Three of these are also perfect. /Perfect/ means the action took place before the time context of the sentence, and that the result of the action is relevant in some way to at the time context. /It had been raining all day./ We're talking about a time X in the past, and prior to time X there was ongoing rain, the state of which became relevant at time X. Importantly, perfect is NOT perfective. These mean two very different things. Klingon aspects do not match one-for-one with any English tenses. English has rules about when to use progressive tenses that do not match the rules for when Klingon uses continuous aspect. (For instance, in the present tense, English must use the present progressive tense to describe /events/ that aren't /states./ /I know John/ is a state. You can't say /I am knowing John./ /I am making lunch right now/ is an event. You can't say /I make lunch right now./ But it is NOT correct to say that the correct Klingon translations are *John vISov* and *megh vIchenmoHtaH.* Klingon doesn't follow these rules. *megh vIchenmoH* is a valid way to express the fact of your lunch-making without describing it as an ongoing action, and *John vISovtaH* is a valid way to express ongoing knowledge of John.) English also does not mark sentences for perfective,while Klingon does. (For instance, /I slept on a bed/ might refer to something I did last night, in which case I'm describing a completed action without reference to its internal structure, so that's perfective, and can be translated *QongDaqDaq jIQongpu'.* On the other hand, /I slept on a bed/ might refer to the sleeping arrangements of myself and a roommate over all of last year, who slept on a couch, in which case I'm describing a situation, not a closed event, and the sentence is therefore not perfective, and should be translated *QongDaqDaq jIQong.*) Now back to your original sentence. *poH nI' bov chep wISIQpu' 'ewropngan.* You've got a mismatched subject and verb prefix. You use *wI-* to agree with a subject of *maH,* not a noun like *'ewropngan.* You're probably trying to say something like /we Europeans,/ but Klingon doesn't do this. The prefix must agree with the subject and object (direct or indirect). Let's drop the *'ewropngan* and assume we're talking about *maH.* If you're rather talk about Europeans, keep the *'ewropngan* and drop the *wI-.* We've already discussed how if you want to talk about an action occurring over a period of time, you'll need something like *qaStaHvIS.* Let's add that as well. We're also talking about an ongoing state of endurance, not describing an action without reference to its internal structure (so it's not perfective). We have two choices: describe ongoing endurance, or describe endurance in an open-ended manner as a general fact. The former sounds better to me, so that's what I'll do. *qaStaHvIS poH nI', bov chep wISIQtaH.*/We endured a prosperous era for a long time./ Personally, describing both a *poH nI'* and a *bov* seems redundant to me. Just saying *bov chep wISIQtaH* would probably get the point across. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you for another remarkably clear explanation of perhaps the most confusing [ahem] aspect of learning Klingon for English speakers. The English “perfect” sounds a lot like the Klingon “perfective” because “perfect” sounds like “perfective”, but they are remarkably unrelated. Each time you explain it, it gets more polished and clear. As one who was confused by this for years longer than I should, I look forward to your explanation every time I see one of these posts come along that highlights this point of confusion in Klingon grammar. Eventually, I might even get Klingon aspect more consistently right, myself. It could happen. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Feb 20, 2022, at 9:07 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 2/20/2022 8:12 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de <mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de> wrote:
In my last text I wrote: ** (I've changed *yIn* for *SIQ* following the recommendations). I have a few questions:
1. Thinking about this sentence, I wasn't sure if I should have said: *qaStaHvIS poH nI'*. I don't think so, because if I understand it correctly, *poH nI'* acts as a time element, just like *DaHjaj*, *Hoghvam*, *cha' ben*, *rep cha'* or *jar cha' DIS 2022*. All these elements don't need *qaStaHvIS*, right?
2. Since *poH nI'* expresses itself a duration, I'm not sure if there is any difference between *poH nI'* and *qaStaHvIS poH nI'*. When should I use the latter, if ever?
3. In Spanish and German, and probably in English too, there is a difference between *this week* and *during this week*. I would use *during this week* if I wanted to speak about something that happened all the time or several times among this week, but not if I only wanted to situate an singular event in the timeline (e.g. I wouldn't say *During this week I've eaten pizza* if I only ate it once and I just wanted to say when I did it). Could we render this difference in Klingon using *qaStaHvIS Hoghvam* instead of just *Hoghvam*? Or has it nothing to do with this? All three of your points are wrapped up in the same answer. The difference between poH nI' and qaStaHvIS poH nI' is the same as the difference between this week and during this week. One names a time in which something happened; the other names a time over whose duration an action occurred continuously or potentially repeatedly. Using poH nI' is extremely vague: you're saying that there was once a long period of time, and on the occasion of that long period, something happened. It doesn't mean that something happened for a long time — for that, use qaStaHvIS poH nI'.
4. All of this led me to a question I've wanted to ask for a long time. In Spanish (and in English I think) we can say something like: *It had been raining all day*, *It has been raining all day* / *It was raining all day*, *It will have been raining all day* expressing a continuous *and* perfective action. Since aspect suffixes belong to the same type in Klingon, how could I express this? Simply by not expressing the continuous aspect, for example? Those sentences do not express perfective.
It had been raining all day. English past perfect progressive tense. It has been raining all day. English present perfect progressive tense. It was raining all day. English past progressive tense. It will have been raining all day. English future perfect progressive tense.
All of these are progressive, or continuous, and therefore not perfective. Perfective means an action is viewed as a whole, without reference to its internal flow. English progressive tenses do reference the internal flow of actions: they tell you that the action occurred in an ongoing manner.
Three of these are also perfect. Perfect means the action took place before the time context of the sentence, and that the result of the action is relevant in some way to at the time context. It had been raining all day. We're talking about a time X in the past, and prior to time X there was ongoing rain, the state of which became relevant at time X.
Importantly, perfect is NOT perfective. These mean two very different things.
Klingon aspects do not match one-for-one with any English tenses. English has rules about when to use progressive tenses that do not match the rules for when Klingon uses continuous aspect. (For instance, in the present tense, English must use the present progressive tense to describe events that aren't states. I know John is a state. You can't say I am knowing John. I am making lunch right now is an event. You can't say I make lunch right now. But it is NOT correct to say that the correct Klingon translations are John vISov and megh vIchenmoHtaH. Klingon doesn't follow these rules. megh vIchenmoH is a valid way to express the fact of your lunch-making without describing it as an ongoing action, and John vISovtaH is a valid way to express ongoing knowledge of John.) English also does not mark sentences for perfective,while Klingon does. (For instance, I slept on a bed might refer to something I did last night, in which case I'm describing a completed action without reference to its internal structure, so that's perfective, and can be translated QongDaqDaq jIQongpu'. On the other hand, I slept on a bed might refer to the sleeping arrangements of myself and a roommate over all of last year, who slept on a couch, in which case I'm describing a situation, not a closed event, and the sentence is therefore not perfective, and should be translated QongDaqDaq jIQong.)
Now back to your original sentence. poH nI' bov chep wISIQpu' 'ewropngan. You've got a mismatched subject and verb prefix. You use wI- to agree with a subject of maH, not a noun like 'ewropngan. You're probably trying to say something like we Europeans, but Klingon doesn't do this. The prefix must agree with the subject and object (direct or indirect). Let's drop the 'ewropngan and assume we're talking about maH. If you're rather talk about Europeans, keep the 'ewropngan and drop the wI-.
We've already discussed how if you want to talk about an action occurring over a period of time, you'll need something like qaStaHvIS. Let's add that as well.
We're also talking about an ongoing state of endurance, not describing an action without reference to its internal structure (so it's not perfective). We have two choices: describe ongoing endurance, or describe endurance in an open-ended manner as a general fact. The former sounds better to me, so that's what I'll do.
qaStaHvIS poH nI', bov chep wISIQtaH. We endured a prosperous era for a long time.
Personally, describing both a poH nI' and a bov seems redundant to me. Just saying bov chep wISIQtaH would probably get the point across.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Thank you, SuStel and charghwI', for your replies concerning *qaStaHvIS*. Just a last question about this: *We meet tonight* would be *DaHjaj ram maghom* and, if I've understood it correctly, *We meet at night* could be something like *qaStaHvIS ram maghom*, right? Would *ram maghom* make any sense? SuStel:
Those sentences do not express perfective. It had been raining all day. English past perfect progressive tense. It has been raining all day. English present perfect progressive tense. It was raining all day. English past progressive tense. It will have been raining all day. English future perfect progressive tense. All of these are progressive, or continuous, and therefore not perfective. Perfective means an action is viewed as a whole, without reference to its internal flow. > English progressive tenses do reference the internal flow of actions: they tell you that the action occurred in an ongoing manner. Three of these are also perfect. Perfect means the action took place before the time context of the sentence, and that the result of the action is relevant in some > way to at the time context. It had been raining all day. We're talking about a time X in the past, and prior to time X there was ongoing rain, the state of which became relevant at time X. Importantly, perfect is NOT perfective. These mean two very different things.
First of all, thank you very much, SuStel, for the *really* detailed analysis and for your patience explaining something you have explained so many times. Maybe the problem only exists because I'm thinking from a Spanish perspective. The difference between perfective and perfect is not always clear in Spanish grammar books, but I admit I'm not an expert on this matter and I'm sorry I've messed it up with my examples. Unfortunately, my knowledge of the English language is not that good, so it's sometimes difficult for me to understand Klingon through English. Anyway, the question arose for me because I was thinking about the difference in Spanish between: *Ayer estuve escribiendo un texto* (*Yesterday I was writing a text*) and *Ayer, cuando llegaste, estaba escribiendo un texto* (*Yesterday, when you arrived, I was writing a text*) *Estar + escribiendo* is the equivalent form to English *be + writing*. The former (*estuve escribiendo*) is in *Pretérito Indefinido* (a typically perfective verbal tense) and the latter (*estaba escribiendo*) is in *Pretérito Imperfecto*. In the former, the ongoing activity is presented as a whole and completed (even if the text itself wasn't finished), in the latter this ongoing activity is presented from its interior and as not completed. As I said, I'm not an expert on this matter and probably this problem doesn't exist in the Klingon language itself, so leaving aside the discussion about the aspect of the Spanish sentences, I would like to know how you would say those two sentences in Klingon and, I hope I don't bother you too much, how you would say in Klingon *When you arrive, I will have been writing for an hour*, *When you arrive, I will be writing* and *When you arrive, I will be writing for an hour*. Thank you *very* much!
On 2/21/2022 6:57 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
Thank you, SuStel and charghwI', for your replies concerning *qaStaHvIS*. Just a last question about this: *We meet tonight* would be *DaHjaj ram maghom* and, if I've understood it correctly, *We meet at night* could be something like *qaStaHvIS ram maghom*, right? Would *ram maghom* make any sense?
**ram** is a perfectly good time expression. **ram maghom** *We meet at night.* No problem with that. It's not pinning down anything about the night passing, just that we meet at night and not day. **qaStaHvIS ram, maghom** might be used for zooming in to a specific point at night and saying that that's when we meet. **ram maghom** The meeting takes place at night. **qaStaHvIS ram, maghom** The meeting takes place at some point during the night. The difference is one of emphasis and focus. Both are grammatical.
SuStel:
Those sentences do not express perfective. It had been raining all day. English past perfect progressive tense. It has been raining all day. English present perfect progressive tense. It was raining all day. English past progressive tense. It will have been raining all day. English future perfect progressive tense. All of these are progressive, or continuous, and therefore not perfective. Perfective means an action is viewed as a whole, without reference to its internal flow. > English progressive tenses do reference the internal flow of actions: they tell you that the action occurred in an ongoing manner. Three of these are also perfect. Perfect means the action took place before the time context of the sentence, and that the result of the action is relevant in some > way to at the time context. It had been raining all day. We're talking about a time X in the past, and prior to time X there was ongoing rain, the state of which became relevant at time X. Importantly, perfect is NOT perfective. These mean two very different things. First of all, thank you very much, SuStel, for the *really* detailed analysis and for your patience explaining something you have explained so many times.
Maybe the problem only exists because I'm thinking from a Spanish perspective. The difference between perfective and perfect is not always clear in Spanish grammar books, but I admit I'm not an expert on this matter and I'm sorry I've messed it up with my examples. Unfortunately, my knowledge of the English language is not that good, so it's sometimes difficult for me to understand Klingon through English.
Most English speakers don't understand the difference between perfect and perfective. I daresay many list members here don't understand the difference between perfect and perfective. I think Spanish distinguishes between perfective (preterite) and imperfective in the past tense, e.g., /yo hablaba/ "I spoke" to refer to an ongoing or recurring act of speaking; /yo hablé/ "I spoke" to refer to a completed instance of speaking. This is basically the same as Klingon *jIjatlh* (approximately equal to Spanish imperfective, but not the continuous meaning, /I spoke occasionally, regularly, sometimes, etc./); *jIjatlhtaH* (another aspect of Spanish imperfective, but the one with the continuous meaning, /I was speaking/); *jIjatlhpu'* (like Spanish preterite, /I spoke one time,/ but also like Spanish perfect tenses, /yo he hablando/). But Klingon breaks apart Spanish imperfective into *-taH* and no-aspect-suffix, and its aspects can be used in past, present, or future.
Anyway, the question arose for me because I was thinking about the difference in Spanish between:
*Ayer estuve escribiendo un texto* (*Yesterday I was writing a text*)
and
*Ayer, cuando llegaste, estaba escribiendo un texto* (*Yesterday, when you arrived, I was writing a text*)
*Estar + escribiendo* is the equivalent form to English *be + writing*. The former (*estuve escribiendo*) is in *Pretérito Indefinido* (a typically perfective verbal tense) and the latter (*estaba escribiendo*) is in *Pretérito Imperfecto*. In the former, the ongoing activity is presented as a whole and completed (even if the text itself wasn't finished), in the latter this ongoing activity is presented from its interior and as not completed.
Yes.
As I said, I'm not an expert on this matter and probably this problem doesn't exist in the Klingon language itself, so leaving aside the discussion about the aspect of the Spanish sentences, I would like to know how you would say those two sentences in Klingon and, I hope I don't bother you too much, how you would say in Klingon *When you arrive, I will have been writing for an hour*, *When you arrive, I will be writing* and *When you arrive, I will be writing for an hour*.
*bIpawDI', qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH. bIpawDI', jIghItlhtaH. * I'm not sure what you're last one means. When you arrive, I will /start///writing and do it for an hour? *bIpawDI', jIghItlhchoH; qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH.* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 2/21/2022 6:23 PM, SuStel wrote:
**ram** is a perfectly good time expression. **ram maghom** *We meet at night.* No problem with that. It's not pinning down anything about the night passing, just that we meet at night and not day. **qaStaHvIS ram, maghom** might be used for zooming in to a specific point at night and saying that that's when we meet.
**ram maghom** The meeting takes place at night. **qaStaHvIS ram, maghom** The meeting takes place at some point during the night.
Whoops! Sorry, was just posting to Duolingo and got my Markdown mixed up with my HTML. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
**ram maghom** The meeting takes place at night. **qaStaHvIS ram, maghom** The meeting takes place at some point during the night. The difference is one of emphasis and focus. Both are grammatical.
Ok, it's very clear now!
Most English speakers don't understand the difference between perfect and perfective. I daresay many list members here don't understand the difference between perfect and perfective. I think Spanish distinguishes between perfective (preterite) and imperfective in the past tense, e.g., yo hablaba "I spoke" to refer to an ongoing or recurring act of speaking; yo hablé "I spoke" to refer to a completed instance of speaking. This is basically the same as Klingon jIjatlh (approximately equal to Spanish imperfective, but not the continuous meaning, I spoke occasionally, regularly, sometimes, etc.); jIjatlhtaH (another aspect of Spanish imperfective, but the one with the continuous meaning, I was speaking); jIjatlhpu' (like Spanish preterite, I spoke one time, but also like Spanish perfect tenses, yo he hablando).>But Klingon breaks apart Spanish imperfective into -taH and no-aspect-suffix, and its aspects can be used in past, present, or future.
Thank you for taking the time to *translate* it into the Spanish grammar! ¿Hablas español?
As I said, I'm not an expert on this matter and probably this problem doesn't exist in the Klingon language itself, so leaving aside the discussion about the aspect of the Spanish sentences, I would like to know how you would say those two sentences in Klingon and, I hope I don't bother you too much, how you would say in Klingon *When you arrive, I will have been writing for an hour*, *When you arrive, I will be writing* and *When you arrive, I will be writing for an hour*. bIpawDI', qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH. bIpawDI', jIghItlhtaH. I'm not sure what you're last one means. When you arrive, I will start writing and do it for an hour? bIpawDI', jIghItlhchoH; qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH.
Yes, that was exactly what I was trying to say. I find this subject really interesting, so I hope you excuse me if I still have a couple of questions I would like to discuss. I understand what you mean when you say that Klingon breaks apart Spanish imperfective into *-taH* (*estaba escribiendo*, *I was writing*) and *no-aspect-suffix* (*escribía*, *I wrote*). However, *estuve escribiendo* (*I was writing*, *Pretérito Indefinido*) is for me, as Spanish speaker, something with represents a mix between continuous and perfective. For example, I cannot say: *Cuando llegaste, estuve escribiendo un texto* if what I want to say is *When you arrived, I was writing a text*, because *estuve escribiendo* presents the ongoing action of writing as a whole and completed *before* the arriving, although not focusing on the result of the action like *había escrito* (*had written*, *Pretérito Pluscuamperfecto*: focus on the result, the text is here finished). That's the reason why something like *bIpawDI', qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH* sounds for me, as Spanish speaker, really strange. I would interpret it probably as the third option, *When you arrive, I will be writing for an hour (I will start writing and do it for an hour)*, and in order to get the meaning *I will have been writing for an hour* I would probably decide to give up the continuous aspect and say something like *jIghItlhpu'* (*I will have written*). I'm not trying to say that Klingon must work as Spanish does, I'm just trying to understand how Klingon works in order to avoid *Spanish* mistakes. From what you are saying I see three possibilities: 1. *-taH* always expresses continuous and imperfective aspect, so if I want to express perfective aspect I must use *-pu'* and give up *-taH*. 2. *-taH* always expresses continuous aspect and we should use it when we prefer, for whatever reason, to present the action as continuous - the perfective or imperfective aspect of the action comes from the context. 3. I'm absolutely not getting it.
The important thing to keep in mind here is: Perfect is not perfective. Stop taking the grammar of the original and trying to map it to the grammar in Klingon when it comes to aspect. There is no map; no general rule for mapping tense and aspect in other languages into Klingon aspect. You have to think about the MEANING of the sentence in terms of Klingon aspect. Consider the moment of the utterance, its time stamp, and whether or not: 1. Is action is still underway? If so, is there a foreseeable goal of this action, at which point the action will cease because the mission is fulfilled? If it is underway, but there isn’t progressing toward a foreseeable goal, use {-taH}. If there is a foreseeable goal (Klingons tend to be mission-oriented as a culture), then use {-lI’}. Is the action complete? If so, was this action intentional in service of a mission or goal? If no mission, use {-pu’}. If the completion was an accomplishment, use {-ta’}. charghwI’, retired.
On Feb 22, 2022, at 6:45 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
SuStel:
**ram maghom** The meeting takes place at night. **qaStaHvIS ram, maghom** The meeting takes place at some point during the night. The difference is one of emphasis and focus. Both are grammatical.
Ok, it's very clear now!
Most English speakers don't understand the difference between perfect and perfective. I daresay many list members here don't understand the difference between perfect and perfective. I think Spanish distinguishes between perfective (preterite) and imperfective in the past tense, e.g., yo hablaba "I spoke" to refer to an ongoing or recurring act of speaking; yo hablé "I spoke" to refer to a completed instance of speaking. This is basically the same as Klingon jIjatlh (approximately equal to Spanish imperfective, but not the continuous meaning, I spoke occasionally, regularly, sometimes, etc.); jIjatlhtaH (another aspect of Spanish imperfective, but the one with the continuous meaning, I was speaking); jIjatlhpu' (like Spanish preterite, I spoke one time, but also like Spanish perfect tenses, yo he hablando).>But Klingon breaks apart Spanish imperfective into -taH and no-aspect-suffix, and its aspects can be used in past, present, or future.
Thank you for taking the time to *translate* it into the Spanish grammar! ¿Hablas español?
As I said, I'm not an expert on this matter and probably this problem doesn't exist in the Klingon language itself, so leaving aside the discussion about the aspect of the Spanish sentences, I would like to know how you would say those two sentences in Klingon and, I hope I don't bother you too much, how you would say in Klingon *When you arrive, I will have been writing for an hour*, *When you arrive, I will be writing* and *When you arrive, I will be writing for an hour*. bIpawDI', qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH. bIpawDI', jIghItlhtaH. I'm not sure what you're last one means. When you arrive, I will start writing and do it for an hour? bIpawDI', jIghItlhchoH; qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH.
Yes, that was exactly what I was trying to say.
I find this subject really interesting, so I hope you excuse me if I still have a couple of questions I would like to discuss. I understand what you mean when you say that Klingon breaks apart Spanish imperfective into *-taH* (*estaba escribiendo*, *I was writing*) and *no-aspect-suffix* (*escribía*, *I wrote*). However, *estuve escribiendo* (*I was writing*, *Pretérito Indefinido*) is for me, as Spanish speaker, something with represents a mix between continuous and perfective. For example, I cannot say: *Cuando llegaste, estuve escribiendo un texto* if what I want to say is *When you arrived, I was writing a text*, because *estuve escribiendo* presents the ongoing action of writing as a whole and completed *before* the arriving, although not focusing on the result of the action like *había escrito* (*had written*, *Pretérito Pluscuamperfecto*: focus on the result, the text is here finished).
That's the reason why something like *bIpawDI', qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH* sounds for me, as Spanish speaker, really strange. I would interpret it probably as the third option, *When you arrive, I will be writing for an hour (I will start writing and do it for an hour)*, and in order to get the meaning *I will have been writing for an hour* I would probably decide to give up the continuous aspect and say something like *jIghItlhpu'* (*I will have written*).
I'm not trying to say that Klingon must work as Spanish does, I'm just trying to understand how Klingon works in order to avoid *Spanish* mistakes. From what you are saying I see three possibilities:
1. *-taH* always expresses continuous and imperfective aspect, so if I want to express perfective aspect I must use *-pu'* and give up *-taH*.
2. *-taH* always expresses continuous aspect and we should use it when we prefer, for whatever reason, to present the action as continuous - the perfective or imperfective aspect of the action comes from the context.
3. I'm absolutely not getting it. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/22/2022 6:45 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to *translate* it into the Spanish grammar! ¿Hablas español?
Solo un poco.
bIpawDI', qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH. bIpawDI', jIghItlhtaH. I'm not sure what you're last one means. When you arrive, I will start writing and do it for an hour? bIpawDI', jIghItlhchoH; qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH. Yes, that was exactly what I was trying to say.
I find this subject really interesting, so I hope you excuse me if I still have a couple of questions I would like to discuss. I understand what you mean when you say that Klingon breaks apart Spanish imperfective into *-taH* (*estaba escribiendo*, *I was writing*) and *no-aspect-suffix* (*escribía*, *I wrote*). However, *estuve escribiendo* (*I was writing*, *Pretérito Indefinido*) is for me, as Spanish speaker, something with represents a mix between continuous and perfective. For example, I cannot say: *Cuando llegaste, estuve escribiendo un texto* if what I want to say is *When you arrived, I was writing a text*, because *estuve escribiendo* presents the ongoing action of writing as a whole and completed *before* the arriving, although not focusing on the result of the action like *había escrito* (*had written*, *Pretérito Pluscuamperfecto*: focus on the result, the text is here finished).
You've exhausted my knowledge of Spanish tenses, I'm afraid. The best I can do is summarize the Klingon situation from the point of view of someone speaking from "now": *-pu'* and *-ta'* mean I'm describing the action as a completed whole, without inspecting its interior structure. *-taH* and *-lI'* mean I'm describing the action as having an "ongoing" structure, already happening before the given moment and still happening after the given moment. /Lacking any of these suffixes/ means I'm describing the action as neither completed nor as ongoing. I might be describing being in the moment of the action, or I might be describing a timeless or general truth. *wa'Hu' jIghItlhpu':*//I performed an act of writing yesterday and competed it. I'm not describing how the act went, just that it was finished. *DaH jIghItlhpu':* I have performed an act of writing that is finished now, or who prior completion is relevant now. *wa'leS jIghItlhpu':* At some point tomorrow I will be looking back at a competed act of writing. *wa'Hu' jIghItlhtaH:* I am describing a moment that occurred yesterday in which I was writing, and describing it as an ongoing action. Shortly before the moment I was writing, and after the moment I'll still be writing. *DaH jIghItlhtaH:* At this moment I am in the act of writing. I was doing this before this moment, and I'll still be doing it after this moment. *wa'leS jIghItlhtaH:* At some point tomorrow I'll be in the act of writing. I will have been doing this before that point, and I'll still be doing it after that point. *wa'Hu' jIghItlh:* Yesterday was a day for writing for me. OR I am describing a moment yesterday in which I was writing, without any reference to writing before that moment or after that moment, and without any indication that I completed the act of writing. *DaH jIghItlh:* Right now writing is something I do, generally. OR I am in the middle of an act of writing, but I'm not making any suggestion that I was writing before this moment or that I'll be writing after this moment, or that my writing is in any way complete. *wa'leS jIghItlh:* Tomorrow will be a day for writing for me. OR I am describing a moment that will occur tomorrow in which I will be writing, but I don't give any indication that I was writing before this moment or after this moment, and I don't give any indication that the writing will be complete.
That's the reason why something like *bIpawDI', qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH* sounds for me, as Spanish speaker, really strange. I would interpret it probably as the third option, *When you arrive, I will be writing for an hour (I will start writing and do it for an hour)*,
In English, you would have to say /When you arrive, I will write for an hour./ I was confused about your meaning, because in English you don't say /I will be writing/ to indicate an action that you just started; it means you're describing a moment in which writing was already happening.
and in order to get the meaning *I will have been writing for an hour* I would probably decide to give up the continuous aspect and say something like *jIghItlhpu'* (*I will have written*).
/I will have been writing/ is not perfective; it's the future perfect progressive tense. (Remember, perfect is not perfective.) There is no perfective in /I will have been writing,/ so translating it as *jIghItlhpu'* isn't right. But it is progressive, and the progressiveness of it is part of the actual meaning (ongoing writing), so *-taH* is the correct Klingon translation. Again, /perfect/ means an action is prior to the time of the sentence but somehow relevant to the time of the sentence, while /perfective/ means an action described as a whole without reference to how it unfolds over time. Klingon has explicit perfective aspect, not a perfect tense.
I'm not trying to say that Klingon must work as Spanish does, I'm just trying to understand how Klingon works in order to avoid *Spanish* mistakes. From what you are saying I see three possibilities:
1. *-taH* always expresses continuous and imperfective aspect, so if I want to express perfective aspect I must use *-pu'* and give up *-taH*.
Continuous and perfective are mutually exclusive in Klingon, yes. *-taH* describes the internal structure of an action as already happening before now and still happening after now (where "now" is the time of the sentence). *-pu'* describes a completed, whole action with no description of how the action unfolded over time. You have to figure out which of these things your sentence wants to express — or, if neither, to leave off any type 7 suffix.
2. *-taH* always expresses continuous aspect and we should use it when we prefer, for whatever reason, to present the action as continuous - the perfective or imperfective aspect of the action comes from the context.
*-taH* will never be perfective, and Klingon doesn't have an explicit imperfective aspect. If you want to identify imperfective in Klingon, it's just everything that doesn't have perfective. "Imperfective" isn't a very useful label in Klingon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you, charghwI', for your clarifications and again SuStel for the exhaustive explanation. SuStel:
Thank you for taking the time to *translate* it into the Spanish grammar! ¿Hablas español? Solo un poco.
¡Qué pena! It would be great to read your explanations in Spanish! :-)
That's the reason why something like *bIpawDI', qaStaHvIS wa' rep jIghItlhtaH* sounds for me, as Spanish speaker, really strange. I would interpret it probably as the third option, *When you arrive, I will be writing for an hour (I will start writing and do it for an hour)*, In English, you would have to say When you arrive, I will write for an hour. I was confused about your meaning, because in English you don't say I will be writing to indicate an action that you just started; it means you're describing a moment in which writing was already happening.
I'm afraid the mixture of Spanish grammar and wrong English was not helpful.
1. *-taH* always expresses continuous and imperfective aspect, so if I want to express perfective aspect I must use *-pu'* and give up *-taH*. Continuous and perfective are mutually exclusive in Klingon, yes. -taH describes the internal structure of an action as already happening before now and still happening after now (where "now" is the time of the sentence). -pu' describes a completed, whole action with no description of how the action unfolded over time. You have to figure out which of these things your sentence wants to express — or, if neither, to leave off any type 7 suffix.
I think I understand now much better how aspect works in Klingon. I just have two last questions: 1. Is this sentence right in English?: *She had been studying from morning to evening, so the next day she passed the exam with no problem*. If it's a correct sentence, wouldn't here the ongoing action of studying be presented as a whole with a beginning and an end and as complete before the action of passing the exam? Or do you say in English *She had studied* and therefore use *-pu'*? 2. English perfect tenses which aren't progressive (e.g. *had written*, *has written*, *will have written*) are usually translated into Klingon *-pu'* or *-ta'*, right? Bonus question: Sorry, I forgot to ask this at the very beginning of this thread: could *we europeans endure it* be translated as *wISIQ maH 'ewropngan* (as an apposition)?
On 2/23/2022 7:07 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
I think I understand now much better how aspect works in Klingon. I just have two last questions: 1. Is this sentence right in English?: *She had been studying from morning to evening, so the next day she passed the exam with no problem*. If it's a correct sentence, wouldn't here the ongoing action of studying be presented as a whole with a beginning and an end and as complete before the action of passing the exam? Or do you say in English *She had studied* and therefore use *-pu'*?
/She had been studying from morning to evening/ is the past perfect progressive tense. It describes an action that is continuous from morning to evening. It implies that studying at some point prior to the time context had been ongoing. The past perfect version of this would be /She had studied from morning to evening./ I'm not sure if this is perfective.//I don't think so — it describes the same continuous action from morning to evening. Not being progressive in English doesn't mean it can't be continuous in Klingon. In Klingon these would both be *po ram je qubbID HaDtaH ghaH, jaj veb vaj qaD Qappu' 'ej ngeD qaD.*
2. English perfect tenses which aren't progressive (e.g. *had written*, *has written*, *will have written*) are usually translated into Klingon *-pu'* or *-ta'*, right?
Usually? Not really. It depends on how they are used. Perfective is not expressed in English verbs.
Bonus question:
Sorry, I forgot to ask this at the very beginning of this thread: could *we europeans endure it* be translated as *wISIQ maH 'ewropngan* (as an apposition)?
This is a common question that we don't have a good answer to. I personally don't think so, at least not as a unit. I could imagine *'ewropngan* being included parenthetically (*wISIQ maH, 'ewropngan* /we, Europeans, endure it/) but we don't have any clear instances of parenthetical splices in Klingon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
1. Is this sentence right in English?: *She had been studying from morning to evening, so the next day she passed the exam with no problem*. If it's a correct sentence, wouldn't here the ongoing action of studying be presented as a whole with a beginning and an end and as complete before the action of passing the exam? Or do you say in English *She had studied* and therefore use *-pu'*? She had been studying from morning to evening is the past perfect progressive tense. It describes an action that is continuous from morning to evening. It implies that studying at some point prior to the time context had been ongoing. The past perfect version of this would be She had studied from morning to evening. I'm not sure if this is perfective. I don't think so — it describes the same continuous action from morning to evening. Not being progressive in English doesn't mean it can't be continuous in Klingon. In Klingon these would both be po ram je qubbID HaDtaH ghaH, jaj veb vaj qaD Qappu' 'ej ngeD qaD.
So, in order to use *-taH* or *-lI'*, it's not necessary that the ongoing action continues after the time context, right? This ongoing action can have taken place *before* the time context, like in the example above, or *after* it.
On 2/24/2022 6:36 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
SuStel:
1. Is this sentence right in English?: *She had been studying from morning to evening, so the next day she passed the exam with no problem*. If it's a correct sentence, wouldn't here the ongoing action of studying be presented as a whole with a beginning and an end and as complete before the action of passing the exam? Or do you say in English *She had studied* and therefore use *-pu'*? She had been studying from morning to evening is the past perfect progressive tense. It describes an action that is continuous from morning to evening. It implies that studying at some point prior to the time context had been ongoing. The past perfect version of this would be She had studied from morning to evening. I'm not sure if this is perfective. I don't think so — it describes the same continuous action from morning to evening. Not being progressive in English doesn't mean it can't be continuous in Klingon. In Klingon these would both be po ram je qubbID HaDtaH ghaH, jaj veb vaj qaD Qappu' 'ej ngeD qaD. So, in order to use *-taH* or *-lI'*, it's not necessary that the ongoing action continues after the time context, right? This ongoing action can have taken place *before* the time context, like in the example above, or *after* it.
I don't think you're identifying the time context correctly. In *po ram je qubbID HaDtaH ghaH, jaj veb vaj qaD Qappu' 'ej ngeD qaD,* we have two distinct time contexts. *po ram qubbID HaDtaH ghaH* is set in *po ram qubbID*/the time between morning and night, /and *jaj veb vaj qaD Qappu'* is set in *jaj veb* /the next day./ *HaDtaH* is continuous over *po ram qubbID,* and *Qappu'* takes place sometime in *jaj veb.* (*ngeD qaD* is a sort of timeless fact, though it refers to something that existed during *jaj veb*). They take place when their time expressions say they do. When we say that *-taH* and *-lI'* represent continuation, we don't mean that they necessarily occur before or after the stated time context. We mean that we're zooming in on our view of the action and talking about a point at which the action has already been happening and after which the action will continue. That point is not congruous with the time context, thought it is within it. When we say *po ram qubbID HaDtaH ghaH,* we don't mean that he was already studying before the morning and still studying after the night; we mean that at any point between *po* and *ram* we can zoom in to see the studying and see that it was occurring before that point and will be occurring after that point. It is continuous. This is what it means to say that we describe an action's internal structure. For perfective actions, we can't zoom in on it and examine its behavior at any point; we are zoomed out and can only pinpoint a spot on a timeline where the action occurred in its entirety. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 2/25/2022 2:08 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
SuStel:
I don't think you're identifying the time context correctly. In po ram je qubbID HaDtaH ghaH, jaj veb vaj qaD Qappu' 'ej ngeD qaD, we have two distinct time contexts. po ram qubbID HaDtaH ghaH is set in po ram qubbID the time between morning and night, and jaj veb vaj qaD Qappu' is set in jaj veb the next day. HaDtaH is continuous over po ram qubbID, and Qappu' takes place sometime in jaj veb. (ngeD qaD is a sort of timeless fact, though it refers to something that existed during jaj veb). They take place when their time expressions say they do.
Sorry, I was actually referring to the time context of the second sentence, but that's not important anymore: your reply has solved my doubts anyway. Thank you!
So, I (*really*) hope I've understood your point:
Let's say I want to express in Klingon *I ate at 2 p.m. and then I went home*. That would be *jISoppu'* and *vIjaHpu'*.
Correct.
*I ate from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. and then I went home*, assuming the similarity to *She had studied from morning to evening*, would be *jISoptaH* and *vIjaHpu'* (despite the fact that I would use the perfective *Pretérito Indefinido* in both cases in Spanish).
Correct.
*I will eat at 2 p.m. and then I will go home* would also be *jISoppu'* and *vIjaHpu'*.
No, /I will eat/ is not perfective. It isn't describing a completed action. The eating is not being described as a completed whole. Same with the going home. *wa'maH cha' vatlh rep jISop; ghIq juH vIjaH.*
*I will eat more vegetables from today* would be *vISop*.
Yes, although the /from/ is not contained in the meaing of the verb. *latlh naH vISop* said about the future just means /I will eat more vegetables./ /I will eat more vegetables from today/ isn't quite grammatical in English. You'd have to say /from today on/ or a more formal /starting today./ In Klingon the whole thing would be two separate clauses, something like *latlh naH vISop; DaHjaj jIruchchoH*/I (will) eat more vegetables; today I start doing it./
*I haven't eaten today* would be *jISoppu'be'*.
Yes, *DaHjaj jISoppu'be'.*
*I've lived here for two months* would be *vIDabtaH*.
Correct.
*I've eaten this type of food before* / *I have eaten this type of food five times before* - I'm not sure about these ones. I would use *vISoppu'*, because I think we refer to several completed actions, any of them considered as a whole: we say we completed the eating once, two times etc. We're not speaking about the action from its inside, as it unfolds over time, without considering a beginning and an end (as we do when we speak about general truths, habits or actions that repeat an unspecified number of times).
You are correct: these are perfective. The collection of actions isn't important. What's important is that eating is being described as a completed whole. Whether you consider the entire collection as a completed whole or an individual act as a completed whole, it's perfective.
Well, if I still don't understand, then it's probably time to close this thread :-) I will think more about it and, above all, I will read more Klingon.
There are some subtleties we haven't discussed. If you're telling a story, for instance, rather than reporting events, you might be trying to position the listener's viewpoint in the middle of the actions as they occur. This will affect the aspect. In storytelling, for instance, it is a convention of English (I don't know about Spanish) that a story is told in the past tense. Klingon doesn't work this way (see /paq'batlh/); the storyteller puts his or her audience in the middle of the action as if it's in progress, even if they tell you that the story happens in the past. (For instance, when telling a story, you might say something like, *jaj wejDIch ghIq ghaH vIleghqa', 'ej jaj loSDIch murI'*/And then on the third day I saw him again, and on the fourth day he hailed me.../ If you were just reporting these things as completed events, you'd use perfective, but if you're telling them as an ongoing story, you wouldn't. And not all possible combinations are significantly different that they really matter. For instance, I don't think the difference between *qaStaHvIS cha' jar, naDev vIDabtaH* and *qaStaHvIS cha' jar, naDev vIDab* is significant. One describes your habitation as ongoing; the other describes it as a timeless fact, but one which in context is true during a particular period. I don't think it would make a difference whether you used the *-taH* here or not. So it's not absolutely cut and dried, and you shouldn't get too bogged down in the bits that aren't important. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
*I will eat at 2 p.m. and then I will go home* would also be *jISoppu'* and *vIjaHpu'*. No, I will eat is not perfective. It isn't describing a completed action. The eating is not being described as a completed whole. Same with the going home. wa'maH cha' vatlh rep jISop; ghIq juH vIjaH.
Is there any situation in which the English Future Simple can be translated into Klingon perfective?
*I've lived here for two months* would be *vIDabtaH*. Correct.
And this is by the way the only case I could think of in which English Present Perfect doesn't translate into Klingon perfective. Are there any other possibilities?
*I've eaten this type of food before* / *I have eaten this type of food five times before* - I'm not sure about these ones. I would use *vISoppu'*, because I think we refer to several completed actions, any of them considered as a whole: we say we completed the eating once, two times etc. We're not speaking about the action from its inside, as it unfolds over time, without considering a beginning and an end (as we do when we speak about general truths, habits or actions that repeat an unspecified number of times). You are correct: these are perfective. The collection of actions isn't important. What's important is that eating is being described as a completed whole. Whether you consider the entire collection as a completed whole or an individual act as a completed whole, it's perfective.
Just to be sure I understand: *I have eaten it five times before* can be seen as five completed acts of eating, considered each as a whole, or as an unique completed act of five-times-eating, considered as a whole. Both are the same.
There are some subtleties we haven't discussed. If you're telling a story, for instance, rather than reporting events, you might be trying to position the listener's viewpoint in the middle of the actions as they occur. This will affect the aspect. In storytelling, for instance, it is a convention of English (I don't know about Spanish) that a story is told in the past tense. Klingon doesn't work this way (see paq'batlh); the storyteller puts his or her audience in the middle of the action as if it's in progress, even if they tell you that the story happens in the past. (For instance, when telling a story, you might say something like, jaj wejDIch ghIq ghaH vIleghqa', 'ej jaj loSDIch murI' And then on the third day I saw him again, and on the fourth day he hailed me... If you were just reporting these things as completed events, you'd use perfective, but if you're telling them as an ongoing story, you wouldn't.
You mean something like a historical or narrative present?
And not all possible combinations are significantly different that they really matter. For instance, I don't think the difference between qaStaHvIS cha' jar, naDev vIDabtaH and qaStaHvIS cha' jar, naDev vIDab is significant. One describes your habitation as ongoing; the other describes it as a timeless fact, but one which in context is true during a particular period. I don't think it would make a difference whether you used the -taH here or not. So it's not absolutely cut and dried, and you shouldn't get too bogged down in the bits that aren't important.
I have the impression I will never speak Klingon well enough...
On 2/25/2022 3:37 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
SuStel:
*I will eat at 2 p.m. and then I will go home* would also be *jISoppu'* and *vIjaHpu'*. No, I will eat is not perfective. It isn't describing a completed action. The eating is not being described as a completed whole. Same with the going home. wa'maH cha' vatlh rep jISop; ghIq juH vIjaH. Is there any situation in which the English Future Simple can be translated into Klingon perfective?
I can't think of one.
*I've lived here for two months* would be *vIDabtaH*. Correct. And this is by the way the only case I could think of in which English Present Perfect doesn't translate into Klingon perfective. Are there any other possibilities?
If the verb in English describes a state rather than an event, it will do this. /I have been happy here for a year,/ *naDev jIQuchtaH, **qaStaHvIS wa' DIS. * /He has //slept all morning,/ *QongtaH ghaH, ***qaStaHvIS povam Hoch*.* /I have known your name all along,/ *ponglIj vISovtaH, ***qaStaHvIS wanI' Hoch*.* Using *-taH* on these isn't the only way to translate these, but it underscores the fact that these aren't perfective. ** **
*I've eaten this type of food before* / *I have eaten this type of food five times before* - I'm not sure about these ones. I would use *vISoppu'*, because I think we refer to several completed actions, any of them considered as a whole: we say we completed the eating once, two times etc. We're not speaking about the action from its inside, as it unfolds over time, without considering a beginning and an end (as we do when we speak about general truths, habits or actions that repeat an unspecified number of times). You are correct: these are perfective. The collection of actions isn't important. What's important is that eating is being described as a completed whole. Whether you consider the entire collection as a completed whole or an individual act as a completed whole, it's perfective. Just to be sure I understand: *I have eaten it five times before* can be seen as five completed acts of eating, considered each as a whole, or as an unique completed act of five-times-eating, considered as a whole. Both are the same.
It's not important if it was once or twice or five times; the important part is that you're describing an event in its entirety as completed and without reference to how it occurred over time is what makes it perfective. If you did it over and over again, it's perfective over and over again. If you say /I have eaten it five times,/ you're describing five instances of doing something perfectively. If you say /I have eaten them,/ and you're referring to all five things, you're describing a /different/ act of eating, one that spans a larger amount of time and involves more consumption, but you're still just describing it as completed, and not describing its flow while it was happening.
There are some subtleties we haven't discussed. If you're telling a story, for instance, rather than reporting events, you might be trying to position the listener's viewpoint in the middle of the actions as they occur. This will affect the aspect. In storytelling, for instance, it is a convention of English (I don't know about Spanish) that a story is told in the past tense. Klingon doesn't work this way (see paq'batlh); the storyteller puts his or her audience in the middle of the action as if it's in progress, even if they tell you that the story happens in the past. (For instance, when telling a story, you might say something like, jaj wejDIch ghIq ghaH vIleghqa', 'ej jaj loSDIch murI' And then on the third day I saw him again, and on the fourth day he hailed me... If you were just reporting these things as completed events, you'd use perfective, but if you're telling them as an ongoing story, you wouldn't. You mean something like a historical or narrative present?
Yes. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Thank you *very much*, SuStel, for investing so much time in explaining this topic, I'm very grateful. It has been really interesting and, although I'm still not confident with aspect in Klingon, I've learned a lot.
If you want to say that something was happening continuously over a period of time, but had been completed as of a particular time point, you probably need a more complex explanation in Klingon resembling the explanation I have just given here in English. Jeremy ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of luis.chaparro@web.de <luis.chaparro@web.de> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 5:36 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org <tlhingan-hol@kli.org> Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] Time elements and *qaStaHvIS*, continuous and perfective aspect SuStel:
1. Is this sentence right in English?: *She had been studying from morning to evening, so the next day she passed the exam with no problem*. If it's a correct sentence, wouldn't here the ongoing action of studying be presented as a whole with a beginning and an end and as complete before the action of passing the exam? Or do you say in English *She had studied* and therefore use *-pu'*? She had been studying from morning to evening is the past perfect progressive tense. It describes an action that is continuous from morning to evening. It implies that studying at some point prior to the time context had been ongoing. The past perfect version of this would be She had studied from morning to evening. I'm not sure if this is perfective. I don't think so — it describes the same continuous action from morning to evening. Not being progressive in English doesn't mean it can't be continuous in Klingon. In Klingon these would both be po ram je qubbID HaDtaH ghaH, jaj veb vaj qaD Qappu' 'ej ngeD qaD.
So, in order to use *-taH* or *-lI'*, it's not necessary that the ongoing action continues after the time context, right? This ongoing action can have taken place *before* the time context, like in the example above, or *after* it. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
janSIy:
If you want to say that something was happening continuously over a period of time, but had been completed as of a particular time point, you probably need a more complex explanation in Klingon resembling the explanation I have just given here in English.
:-) If there is something I've learned about Klingon is indeed that recasting is an art.
Since you don’t mention what it is you are enduring, another option for your bonus question would be: ‘ewropngan’e’ masIQ. As for Europeans, we endure. The noun suffix {-‘e’} has been used in canon to set the scope of a statement, and since the prefix indicates a subject with no object, the subject, “we”, must be Europeans. Otherwise, you probably should just assume that we know who “we” are from context. I think that “we” is the strangest grammatical person in both English and Klingon, since there’s an inclusive version (including those being spoken to) and an exclusive version (encompassing a group that does not include those being spoken to). Cherokee apparently differentiates between the two, though I think it does it by not having what you’d consider first person plural, instead constructing it out of elements, like “you and I” or “he and I” or “they and I”. If it is important that there be an object, then you can create the context in a separate sentence, which is the fix for a LOT of “What if I want to say X in Klingon?” questions. ‘eropngan maH. wISIQ. charghwI’, retired.
On Feb 23, 2022, at 9:16 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
Bonus question:
Sorry, I forgot to ask this at the very beginning of this thread: could *we europeans endure it* be translated as *wISIQ maH 'ewropngan* (as an apposition)?
This is a common question that we don't have a good answer to. I personally don't think so, at least not as a unit. I could imagine 'ewropngan being included parenthetically (wISIQ maH, 'ewropngan we, Europeans, endure it) but we don't have any clear instances of parenthetical splices in Klingon.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
charghwI':
Since you don’t mention what it is you are enduring, another option for your bonus question would be: ‘ewropngan’e’ masIQ. As for Europeans, we endure.
I was referring to the sentence I was discussing at the beginning of this thread, *poH nI' bov chep wISIQpu' 'ewropngan*. But your approach is a really interesting one when you don't need an object. Thank you!
I think that “we” is the strangest grammatical person in both English and Klingon, since there’s an inclusive version (including those being spoken to) and an exclusive version (encompassing a group that does not include those being spoken to). Cherokee apparently differentiates between the two, though I think it does it by not having what you’d consider first person plural, instead constructing it out of elements, like “you and I” or “he and I” or “they and I”.
I didn't know it. Thank you for sharing!
On 2/25/2022 2:27 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
charghwI':
Since you don’t mention what it is you are enduring, another option for your bonus question would be:
‘ewropngan’e’ masIQ.
As for Europeans, we endure. I was referring to the sentence I was discussing at the beginning of this thread,*poH nI' bov chep wISIQpu' 'ewropngan*. But your approach is a really interesting one when you don't need an object. Thank you!
Do we endure Europeans? Are we Europeans? Do we just not like the word *'ewropngan *and endure its utterance? This sentence doesn't say. The fronted topic solution is maddeningly vague, and it's probably not the way Klingons do things. It's not ungrammatical per se, but it seems, at best, awkward and oddly emphasized. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
charghwI':
Since you don’t mention what it is you are enduring, another option for your bonus question would be: ‘ewropngan’e’ masIQ. As for Europeans, we endure. I was referring to the sentence I was discussing at the beginning of this thread, *poH nI' bov chep wISIQpu' 'ewropngan*. But your approach is a really interesting one when you don't need an object. Thank you! Do we endure Europeans? Are we Europeans? Do we just not like the word 'ewropngan and endure its utterance? This sentence doesn't say.
Sorry, I understand the ambiguity if the prefix used were *DI-*, but is this ambiguity also present with the prefix *ma-*?
On 2/25/2022 4:25 PM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
‘ewropngan’e’ masIQ.
As for Europeans, we endure. I was referring to the sentence I was discussing at the beginning of this thread,*poH nI' bov chep wISIQpu' 'ewropngan*. But your approach is a really interesting one when you don't need an object. Thank you! Do we endure Europeans? Are we Europeans? Do we just not like the word 'ewropngan and endure its utterance? This sentence doesn't say. Sorry, I understand the ambiguity if the prefix used were *DI-*, but is this ambiguity also present with the prefix *ma-*?
It's not a problem with a mismatched prefix. By saying *'ewropngan'e' maSIQ,* you're saying "the topic of my sentence is Europeans, and the sentence says that we endure." This doesn't make it at all clear whether we are Europeans, or we endure something about Europeans, or that Europeans have some other relationship with our enduring. It just says that Europeans are the topic of our enduring. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
It's not a problem with a mismatched prefix. By saying 'ewropngan'e' maSIQ, you're saying "the topic of my sentence is Europeans, and the sentence says that we endure." This doesn't make it at all clear whether we are Europeans, or we endure something about Europeans, or that Europeans have some other relationship with our enduring. It just says that Europeans are the topic of our enduring.
Ok, I understand.
Addressing item 1: You are lumping together “time elements” two very different things, and then equating them to a third thing that is different from either. First, {DaHjaj, Hoghvam, cha’ ben} are all deictic references. They depict a duration with boundaries measured relative to the moment the statement is uttered. There have been billions of yesterdays, but if I say something happened yesterday, I’m only talking about one of them, and you know which one because it’s only the one measured from “today”, which is the day I’m uttering this statement about “yesterday”. Deixis is all about the utterance. The person uttering it is the First Person, so “I” am always the person making the utterance, and even though each English speaker uses the same word to refer to a person different from all those other “I”s, you know who that person is talking about because of deixis. The speaker is always “I”. The time of the utterance is “Now”. The place the utterance occurs is “here”. So, you have person, place, and time, all pegged to the utterance. “Today, this week, two years ago” are all measured relative to the utterance, so they are all deictic references, and as such they are not just “time elements”. They are time stamps. They are anchors that place the action of a sentence. Klingon has a place for Time Stamps in a sentence. When you see a deictic time reference at the beginning of a sentence, it doesn’t need a Type 5 suffix. It doesn’t need a verb. It’s a Time Stamp. That’s it’s easily recognizable purpose. Second, you have references to time you can point to on a clock or a calendar. Just like deictic references, they provide specific anchors in time to tell you when an action happens. They also serve as Time Stamps, and have their grammatical place in a Klingon sentence with no verb or Type 5 noun suffix there to tell you what this reference is doing in the sentence. Now, consider {poH nI’}. It’s a duration, but it has no anchor. It’s a long time. So? When did it happen? We don’t know. It’s not deictic. It’s not a reference to a calendar or a clock. It’s a duration without an anchor. It is not a Time Stamp. So, if it is not a time stamp, what is it’s grammatical function in the sentence? Standing alone, it doesn’t have one. It is not the subject. It is not the object. It has no Type 5 noun suffix telling us what to do with it. Enter {qaStaHvIS}. Now {poH nI’} is the subject of a verb within a dependent clause. It has a reason for being in the sentence. Without it, you have no explanation for why it is part of the sentence. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Feb 20, 2022, at 8:12 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
In my last text I wrote: *poH nI' bov chep wISIQpu' 'ewropngan* (I've changed *yIn* for *SIQ* following the recommendations). I have a few questions:
1. Thinking about this sentence, I wasn't sure if I should have said: *qaStaHvIS poH nI'*. I don't think so, because if I understand it correctly, *poH nI'* acts as a time element, just like *DaHjaj*, *Hoghvam*, *cha' ben*, *rep cha'* or *jar cha' DIS 2022*. All these elements don't need *qaStaHvIS*, right?
2. Since *poH nI'* expresses itself a duration, I'm not sure if there is any difference between *poH nI'* and *qaStaHvIS poH nI'*. When should I use the latter, if ever?
3. In Spanish and German, and probably in English too, there is a difference between *this week* and *during this week*. I would use *during this week* if I wanted to speak about something that happened all the time or several times among this week, but not if I only wanted to situate an singular event in the timeline (e.g. I wouldn't say *During this week I've eaten pizza* if I only ate it once and I just wanted to say when I did it). Could we render this difference in Klingon using *qaStaHvIS Hoghvam* instead of just *Hoghvam*? Or has it nothing to do with this?
4. All of this led me to a question I've wanted to ask for a long time. In Spanish (and in English I think) we can say something like: *It had been raining all day*, *It has been raining all day* / *It was raining all day*, *It will have been raining all day* expressing a continuous *and* perfective action. Since aspect suffixes belong to the same type in Klingon, how could I express this? Simply by not expressing the continuous aspect, for example?
Thank you! _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/20/2022 9:07 AM, Will Martin wrote:
Now, consider {poH nI’}. It’s a duration, but it has no anchor. It’s a long time. So? When did it happen? We don’t know. It’s not deictic. It’s not a reference to a calendar or a clock. It’s a duration without an anchor. It is not a Time Stamp.
This isn't correct. We have seen *wa' jaj* used canonically exactly the way English /one day/ is used. It is neither deictic nor fixed to an "anchor." It is exactly as vague as *poH nI'.* But it is used as a time expression. You /could/ use *poH nI'* as a time reference, but it would probably require special context. For instance, if you were talking about several periods of history, one of which was longer than the others, you might say something like *poH nI' chenpu' tayqeq'a'*/The great civilization formed in the long period./ You might not know exactly when the long period was, but you know it existed, and that's enough for a time expression. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
participants (5)
-
janSIy . -
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
SuStel -
Will Martin -
Will Martin