chalqachDaq bIQaDbe' je even in a tower you are not safe I think this sentence shows that the {je} "too" *can* indeed refer to the type-5'ed noun of the sentence too. I know that the translation is given as "even.." instead of "at a tower you aren't safe too", but obviously this is just a matter of choice of words. The only way I can understand it is "in a tower you aren't safe too", i.e. "among the various places where you aren't safe, is a tower too". So perhaps it is possible to say: ngugh bIpujpu' DaH bIpuj je You were weak then You're weak now too Of course one can argue that in the Ca'Non sentence we have a type-5'ed noun and not an adverb, but I think that if this use of {je} "too" applies for type-5'ed nouns, then chances are that it applies too for any non-ovs crap placed at the beginning of the sentence, i.e. adverbs and time stamps. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 3/30/2022 7:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
chalqachDaq bIQaDbe' je even in a tower you are not safe
I think this sentence shows that the {je} "too" *can* indeed refer to the type-5'ed noun of the sentence too. I know that the translation is given as "even.." instead of "at a tower you aren't safe too", but obviously this is just a matter of choice of words. The only way I can understand it is "in a tower you aren't safe too", i.e. "among the various places where you aren't safe, is a tower too".
You are applying the grammar of the English sentence to the Klingon sentence, but the grammar of the Klingon sentence is different. In English, you can move the /even/ around to apply it to different elements. /Even in a tower, you are not safe. In a tower, even you are not safe. In a tower, you are not even safe./ In Klingon, you can't do this. You've either got the adverbial *vabDot,* or you've got the leftover *je* used adverbially, and each is fixed in position. Klingon can't /even/ individual parts of a sentence; it can only /even/ entire sentences.
So perhaps it is possible to say:
ngugh bIpujpu' DaH bIpuj je
You were weak then You're weak now too
The perfective on the first sentence is wrong. Being weak is a quality, not an action that is completed. There might be some unusual situations where being weak can be described as performed and completed, but this isn't one of them. *ngugh bIpuj. DaH bIpuj je.* The ability to decide which part of the sentence gets the /too/ in the English translation comes from context. The first sentence happened /at that time;/ the second sentence happens /now./ That's the only thing that changed between the two sentences, so obviously it's the element that is being /too/'d. But this isn't indicated in any way in the grammar of the second sentence. /At that time you were weak. "Now you are weak" is also a true statement./ -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Just to make SuStel’s excellent analysis even more obvious, consider the same sentence in different contexts: chalqachDaq jIQaDbe’. chalqachDaq bIQaDbe’ je. chalqachDaq bItujbe’. chalqachDaq bIQaDbe’ je. juHlIjDaq bIQaDbej. qulDaq bIQaDbe’. chalqachDaq bIQaDbe’ je. Your example assumed a specific context that you had not stated. It COULD mean what you intend, but without sufficient context, it doesn’t specifically mean what you want it to mean, because, as SuStel explained, adverbs in Klingon apply to the entire sentence/clause without the ability to specify which part of the sentence you intend to apply it to. You can accomplish communicating the meaning you seek to convey, but you need to provide enough context. One sentence in English probably needs multiple sentences in Klingon to convey this specific meaning in Klingon, unless sufficient context has already been shared.
On Mar 30, 2022, at 7:39 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
chalqachDaq bIQaDbe' je even in a tower you are not safe
I think this sentence shows that the {je} "too" *can* indeed refer to the type-5'ed noun of the sentence too. I know that the translation is given as "even.." instead of "at a tower you aren't safe too", but obviously this is just a matter of choice of words. The only way I can understand it is "in a tower you aren't safe too", i.e. "among the various places where you aren't safe, is a tower too".
So perhaps it is possible to say:
ngugh bIpujpu' DaH bIpuj je
You were weak then You're weak now too
Of course one can argue that in the Ca'Non sentence we have a type-5'ed noun and not an adverb, but I think that if this use of {je} "too" applies for type-5'ed nouns, then chances are that it applies too for any non-ovs crap placed at the beginning of the sentence, i.e. adverbs and time stamps.
-- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
jIH:
ngugh bIpujpu' DaH bIpuj je SuStel: The perfective on the first sentence is wrong. Being weak is a quality, not an action that is completed. There might be some unusual situations where being weak can be described as performed and completed, but this isn't one of them.
I can't understand this. Does this mean that one can use the perfective {-pu'} only on action verbs, and not on quality verbs? -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On 3/31/2022 9:45 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
jIH:
ngugh bIpujpu' DaH bIpuj je SuStel: The perfective on the first sentence is wrong. Being weak is a quality, not an action that is completed. There might be some unusual situations where being weak can be described as performed and completed, but this isn't one of them.
I can't understand this. Does this mean that one can use the perfective {-pu'} only on action verbs, and not on quality verbs?
No, it means if you want to describe possessing a quality in the past, you're describing /having/ that quality, not having completed having that quality. *-pu'* doesn't just mean "it's over now"; it means you're describing an action as a completed whole. But when you want to say that at a specific time you had a specific quality, this isn't perfective, it's imperfective. In that moment, you have the quality *puj.* You're not describing anything as a completed whole. I think you're still confusing past tense with perfective aspect. Personally, I think our near-complete lack of quality verbs in the perfective isn't a coincidence. There isn't a rule against it, but I can't imagine it being a productive thing to do in any but the most unusual of circumstances. I mentioned this on Discord the other day: in Welsh, there actually /is/ a rule that you cannot put stative verbs (like /hope, think, belong, know/) into the preterite tense (which is basically similar to Klingon's perfective aspect, but only applies in the past), in a way similar to how English generally cannot put stative verbs into the present progressive tense. I think it's entirely possible that a Klingon grammarian would say that in Klingon you generally cannot put a stative verb (and in Klingon, "stative" means not only stative verbs like those listed above, but also quality verbs) into the perfective aspect. No such rule has been written, and I'm not claiming that anybody has to follow that rule, but it does make sense. I think to put a Klingon stative verb into the perfective would be to alter it from a state to an event. The effect of saying *ngugh bIpujpu'* would be like saying "At that time, you weaked." There might be an unusual circumstance where you might want to say such a thing, just as there might be an unusual circumstance in English where you might want to say "I am knowing you," but it's not standard. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
When I read the end of this, I thought {ngugh bIpujpu’} could mean something close to {ngugh bIpujHa’choH} before realizing, nope. That’s what {bIpujHa’choH} is for. If you had previously been weak and that status became “complete”, as in, you are done with it, then you are undoing being weak, and the change is worth noting with {-choH}. Using {-pu’} instead would be weird enough to consider wrong. And if you wanted to interpret {bIpujpu’} the OTHER way, to say, “You’ve been working your way toward becoming weak and now the process is complete,” that doesn’t work because the state of weakness is not finished, assuming that you are still weak. That’s more like {bIpujchoHchu’} or {bIpujchoHbej}, depending on the quality/threshold of weakness you are going for. Or maybe {bIpujchoHpu’} could mean that you’ve been becoming weak, and you are no longer becoming weak. You just ARE weak. The beginning of your weakness is complete. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Mar 31, 2022, at 10:08 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 3/31/2022 9:45 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
jIH:
ngugh bIpujpu' DaH bIpuj je SuStel: The perfective on the first sentence is wrong. Being weak is a quality, not an action that is completed. There might be some unusual situations where being weak can be described as performed and completed, but this isn't one of them.
I can't understand this. Does this mean that one can use the perfective {-pu'} only on action verbs, and not on quality verbs? No, it means if you want to describe possessing a quality in the past, you're describing having that quality, not having completed having that quality. -pu' doesn't just mean "it's over now"; it means you're describing an action as a completed whole. But when you want to say that at a specific time you had a specific quality, this isn't perfective, it's imperfective. In that moment, you have the quality puj. You're not describing anything as a completed whole. I think you're still confusing past tense with perfective aspect.
Personally, I think our near-complete lack of quality verbs in the perfective isn't a coincidence. There isn't a rule against it, but I can't imagine it being a productive thing to do in any but the most unusual of circumstances.
I mentioned this on Discord the other day: in Welsh, there actually is a rule that you cannot put stative verbs (like hope, think, belong, know) into the preterite tense (which is basically similar to Klingon's perfective aspect, but only applies in the past), in a way similar to how English generally cannot put stative verbs into the present progressive tense. I think it's entirely possible that a Klingon grammarian would say that in Klingon you generally cannot put a stative verb (and in Klingon, "stative" means not only stative verbs like those listed above, but also quality verbs) into the perfective aspect. No such rule has been written, and I'm not claiming that anybody has to follow that rule, but it does make sense.
I think to put a Klingon stative verb into the perfective would be to alter it from a state to an event. The effect of saying ngugh bIpujpu' would be like saying "At that time, you weaked." There might be an unusual circumstance where you might want to say such a thing, just as there might be an unusual circumstance in English where you might want to say "I am knowing you," but it's not standard.
-- 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
On 4/1/2022 2:48 PM, Will Martin wrote:
When I read the end of this, I thought {ngugh bIpujpu’} could mean something close to {ngugh bIpujHa’choH} before realizing, nope. That’s what {bIpujHa’choH} is for. If you had previously been weak and that status became “complete”, as in, you are done with it, then you are undoing being weak, and the change is worth noting with {-choH}. Using {-pu’} instead would be weird enough to consider wrong.
*-pu'* does imply that some change occurred somewhere, somewhen, but the whole point of perfective is that you're not witness to the internal flow of the action expressed. You're told that it happened in its entirety, but you're not told anything about how it changed or flowed through time. That's what perfective means, and in Klingon, perfective implies a completed action. Not "the action became complete," just "a completed action." Understand the difference between these two, and you understand Klingon perfective. Let's take an obviously active verb to avoid any questions of meaning. If I say *wa'Hu' jIqetpu'*/I ran yesterday,/ I am naming myself as the performer of *qet,* I am identifying yesterday as the point on the timeline that *qet* occurs, and I am saying that *qet* was performed in its entirety. That doesn't mean I necessarily got to where I was going or that I didn't trip along the way or anything; it just means I performed a whole action of *qet.* Importantly, it does NOT express the idea that *jIqetchoH*/I began to run,/ *jIqettaH*/I continued to run,/ or *jIqetbe'choH*/I stopped running./ Those views of this one action have zoomed in to certain... ahem... "aspects" of the action to look how they flow over time. *jIqetchoH* zooms in to the start of the running and expresses it as a change of state from not running to running. *jIqettaH* zooms in to the middle of the running and expresses it as a moment before which the running was already happening and after which the running will still be happening. *jIqetbe'choH* zooms in to the end of the running and expresses it as a change of state from running to not running. It's this zooming in that *-pu'* absolutely prohibits. By definition, perfective is that aspect in which the flow of time of an action is compressed into a single, featureless point. You can't zoom in to it to examine its parts. Perfective exists precisely to enable describing actions in this way. It doesn't describe "coming to an end"... that would be zooming in to the ending to examine it. (And TKD tells us that, in general, leaving off an aspect suffix means a verb is neither continuous nor perfective. If I don't include any "zooming" on the verb, if I just say *jIqet*/I ran,/ it is neither zooming in on any part of the running nor zooming out to compress the running into a single dot on the timeline. It is a formless fact. It might be timelessly true or habitual that I used to run, but without a specific time in which to describe me doing it it can't be put on the timeline. Or it might mean that I'm excluding the entire timeline from my view, able to perceive only the single point that is the current moment, which moment moves along with me as I tell the story.) So now try to apply this to a quality verb. If I say *ngugh bIpujpu',* I'm picking out a specific point on the timeline, /that time,/ and saying that at that time there's a dot that represents your being weak. It's not that you were weak for only a moment; it's that you've zoomed out from an act of being weak and can't view its internal structure. This is not a state; it's an action. If your "dots" on the timeline represent big enough periods of time, you MIGHT get away with expressing being weak as an action performed rather than a state experienced, but it would be an unusual thing to do.
And if you wanted to interpret {bIpujpu’} the OTHER way, to say, “You’ve been working your way toward becoming weak and now the process is complete,” that doesn’t work because the state of weakness is not finished, assuming that you are still weak. That’s more like {bIpujchoHchu’} or {bIpujchoHbej}, depending on the quality/threshold of weakness you are going for.
Yes, *-pu'* does not include the concept of *-chu'.* It doesn't imply that anything was done correctly or completely, just that the action is being viewed as a "completed" whole.
Or maybe {bIpujchoHpu’} could mean that you’ve been becoming weak, and you are no longer becoming weak. You just ARE weak. The beginning of your weakness is complete.
*bIpujchoHpu'* describes an act of changing state from not weak to weak. It is this act of changing state that is being described, not the weakness itself. We've zoomed out from the act, unable to see it flow over time. We can assume the being weak goes on, but the being weak isn't described here; the change is. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
I mentioned this on Discord the other day: in Welsh, there actually is a rule that you cannot put stative verbs (like hope, think, belong, know) into the preterite tense (which is basically similar to Klingon's perfective aspect, but only applies in the past), in a way similar to how English generally cannot put stative verbs into the present progressive tense. I think it's entirely possible that a Klingon grammarian would say that in Klingon you generally cannot put a stative verb (and in Klingon, "stative" means not only stative verbs like those listed above, but also quality verbs) into the perfective aspect. No such rule has been written, and I'm not claiming that anybody has to follow that rule, but it does make sense.
In Spanish it's actually the opposite: You can put stative verbs into the preterite tense (Pretérito Indefinido) and you can also use this tense to speak about qualities in the past: *Fue muy rebelde hasta que cumplió los 18 años* (*He/she was very rebellious until she/he turned 18* - Indefinido, the quality is presented as a completed whole) *Era muy rebelde, así que tenía muchos problemas en la escuela* (*He/she was very rebellious, so he/she had a lot of problems at school* - Imperfecto, the quality is not presented as completed) I'm not trying to say at all that Klingon works like Spanish. I just wanted to point out this feature of the Spanish language because I like the subject and I find it interesting. By the way, I don't know how qualities and perfective work in Modern Greek, but in Spanish I would use imperfective, so I would have said: *ngugh bIpuj, DaH bIpuj je*.
participants (5)
-
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
mayqel qunen'oS -
SuStel -
Will Martin -
Will Martin