Perfective with qualities / perfective and perfect
I've been reading the last threads about perfective with interest and (of course!) I still have a couple of questions. 1. I know now that there's no significant canonical example of qualities with *pu'*. That's a fact I'm not discussing and I'm ready to accept it without problem. Unfortunately, since we make in Spanish a difference between qualities in perfective and imperfective tenses, it's very *unnutural* for me not to use perfective in some situations. I just want to give an example of this and if you say: *Ok, maybe that's possible in Spanish, but in Klingon we don't do that*, then I won't do that in Klingon :-) In Spanish there is a big difference between: *La conversación era muy desagradable, así que decidí irme* (*The conversation was very unpleasant, so I decided to leave*) - Imperfective: The situation is presented to the listeners as not completed, as an open box into which they can go and look, so they are put *in medias res*, in the middle of the narrated situation (in their imagination they see the speaker in the middle of an unpleasant conversation and then leaving *before* the conversation was finished). *La conversación fue muy desagradable, así que decidí irme* (*The conversation was very unpleasant, so I decided to leave*) - Perfective: The situation is presented to the listeners as completed, as a closed box they are looking at from the outside and into which they cannot look (in their imagination they see an unpleasant conversation finished and the speaker leaving *after* that). By the way, how can I say *the conversation was unpleasant* in Klingon? *naH ja'chuqtaHghach*? Supossing this is correct, would it make any sense in Klingon to distinguish between *naH* and *naHpu'* in this context? 2. *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* could have two interpretations, right?: *Yesterday, I ate at 12 pm* (perfective) or *Yesterday, I had (already) eaten at 12 pm*. Is context (or maybe adding something like *wejHa'*) the only way to distinguish these meanings? 3. I discussed this in another thread, I only want to be sure I understood it correctly: Although the sentence in 2 has for the past those two interpretations (perfective not perfect and perfective perfect), for the future (despite the fact this could be otherway in other languages) there is in Klingon only a *perfective perfect* interpretation (not a *perfective not perfect* one): *wa'leS rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* can only be *Tomorrow, I will have eaten at 12 pm*, right? Thank you for your patience!
On 4/12/2022 6:11 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
1. I know now that there's no significant canonical example of qualities with *pu'*. That's a fact I'm not discussing and I'm ready to accept it without problem. Unfortunately, since we make in Spanish a difference between qualities in perfective and imperfective tenses, it's very *unnutural* for me not to use perfective in some situations. I just want to give an example of this and if you say: *Ok, maybe that's possible in Spanish, but in Klingon we don't do that*, then I won't do that in Klingon :-)
Okay, maybe that's possible in Spanish, but in Klingon we haven't seen Okrand doing that. That's as definitive as I can get.
In Spanish there is a big difference between:
*La conversación era muy desagradable, así que decidí irme* (*The conversation was very unpleasant, so I decided to leave*) - Imperfective: The situation is presented to the listeners as not completed, as an open box into which they can go and look, so they are put *in medias res*, in the middle of the narrated situation (in their imagination they see the speaker in the middle of an unpleasant conversation and then leaving *before* the conversation was finished).
*La conversación fue muy desagradable, así que decidí irme* (*The conversation was very unpleasant, so I decided to leave*) - Perfective: The situation is presented to the listeners as completed, as a closed box they are looking at from the outside and into which they cannot look (in their imagination they see an unpleasant conversation finished and the speaker leaving *after* that).
I understand the difference. In English you can replicate this with simple past and past perfect tenses: /The conversation was very unpleasant, so I decided to leave./ (The decision took place during the unpleasant conversation.) /The conversation had been very unpleasant, so I decided to leave./ (The decision took place after the unpleasant conversation was over.) All I can say is that Spanish imperfect and preterite tenses include a sense of "past" that Klingon verbs don't have. You can't set up multiple levels of being in the past just with verbs. You need other words to establish contexts.
By the way, how can I say *the conversation was unpleasant* in Klingon? *naH ja'chuqtaHghach*? Supossing this is correct, would it make any sense in Klingon to distinguish between *naH* and *naHpu'* in this context?
I would choose a more specific word; I don't think Klingon has one that covers everything that /unpleasant/ does. Examples: *baw'Ha'moH ja'chuqghach*/The conversation makes one uncomfortable, worried, hesitant;/ *nuQ ja'chuqghach*/The conversation annoys;/ *'IQmoH ja'chuqghach*/The conversation makes one sad./ You can also say *naH ja'chuqghach*/The conversation was hostile, malicious, unfriendly, antagonistic,/ but whether that is unpleasant to the participants is relative (remember that *SeymoH QeH.*) If I say *naH ja'chuqghach, vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq**/The conversation was hostile, so I decided to leave,/ I'm saying the conversation's quality of hostility prompted me to leave, NOT that I left during the conversation. I might have left during the conversation or afterward. If I want to specify whether the leaving took place during or after the conversation, I have to express this with other words than the verbs: *DaSjaj naH ja'chuqghach, ngugh vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq.* /On Monday, the conversation was hostile, so I decided to leave at that time. /*DaSjaj naH ja'chuqghach, povjaj vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq.*/On Monday, the conversation was hostile, so on Tuesday I decided to leave./
2. *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* could have two interpretations, right?: *Yesterday, I ate at 12 pm* (perfective) or *Yesterday, I had (already) eaten at 12 pm*. Is context (or maybe adding something like *wejHa'*) the only way to distinguish these meanings?
*wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* means that you ate lunch at noon, not that you had already eaten lunch when noon rolled around.
3. I discussed this in another thread, I only want to be sure I understood it correctly: Although the sentence in 2 has for the past those two interpretations (perfective not perfect and perfective perfect), for the future (despite the fact this could be otherway in other languages) there is in Klingon only a *perfective perfect* interpretation (not a *perfective not perfect* one): *wa'leS rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* can only be *Tomorrow, I will have eaten at 12 pm*, right?
It just so happens that in English we have only one kind of perfective future tense: the future perfect. This doesn't affect what the Klingon means; it only affects our translations of the Klingon. Without any time context given, *jISoppu'* means that I perform an act of eating, expressed as a completed whole with no view of the flow of time within it. It can equally take place in the past, present, or future without any change in meaning. It's just the case that when translating into other languages that DO change tenses based on past, present, and future, you don't get equal treatment of Klingon perfective. So, when I translate *jISoppu'* into all possible English sentences, not all the output sentences have equal meaning, and there aren't an equal number in the past, present, or future, because English doesn't treat the past, present, and future identically. ENGLISH PAST TENSES Simple past: /I ate. /Past perfect: /I had eaten./ ENGLISH PRESENT TENSES Present perfect: /I have eaten./ ENGLISH FUTURE TENSES Future perfect: /I will have eaten./ None of these English sentences quite capture the exact meaning of *jISoppu',* just as how no Klingon form of *Sop* can quite capture the exact meaning of /I ate./ That's the nature of translation. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 4/12/2022 9:28 AM, SuStel wrote:
If I say *naH ja'chuqghach, vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq**/The conversation was hostile, so I decided to leave,/ I'm saying the conversation's quality of hostility prompted me to leave, NOT that I left during the conversation. I might have left during the conversation or afterward. If I want to specify whether the leaving took place during or after the conversation, I have to express this with other words than the verbs:
Sorry, my footnote was going to be: yes, I know that this might technically need to be *jImejpu' vaj 'e' vIwuq,* but saying this obscures my point a little, and I'm not convinced that I can't put an adverbial in front of an entire sentence-as-object construction as its own sentence. So for the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to put the adverbial in front. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
As a side issue, if we nominalize “conversation”, we’ve already made a couple of decisions, and we stumble into the lack of articles in Klingon. Without context, we can’t differentiate between: “The conversation is unpleasant.” “Conversation is unpleasant.” Am I speaking about a particular conversation, or am I simply misanthropic and dislike conversation in general? Also, would the language nudge me toward seeing the person or people talking as the source of unpleasantry instead of anthropomorphizing conversation itself and giving it the personality trait of unpleasantness? English nominalizes so casually, and gives processes personalities. Klingon can do that, but does a Klingon-speaking mind start out in that direction? jatlhtaHvIS nuvvetlh, reH jIbelHa’taH. Or, based on DaSjaj naH ja'chuqghach, ngugh vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq. DaSjaj ja’taHmo’ qoHpu’vetlh, jImejnIS. I’m not saying anybody is wrong here. I’m just adding a perspective a layer deeper than, “Does the grammar support this expression?” If you want to talk like a native, is this something you’d be inclined to say? It’s obviously a fictional, philosophical question, not a grammatical objection. pItlh charghwI’ ‘utlh (ghaH, ghaH, -Daj)
On Apr 12, 2022, at 9:28 AM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 4/12/2022 6:11 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de <mailto:luis.chaparro@web.de> wrote:
1. I know now that there's no significant canonical example of qualities with *pu'*. That's a fact I'm not discussing and I'm ready to accept it without problem. Unfortunately, since we make in Spanish a difference between qualities in perfective and imperfective tenses, it's very *unnutural* for me not to use perfective in some situations. I just want to give an example of this and if you say: *Ok, maybe that's possible in Spanish, but in Klingon we don't do that*, then I won't do that in Klingon :-) Okay, maybe that's possible in Spanish, but in Klingon we haven't seen Okrand doing that.
That's as definitive as I can get.
In Spanish there is a big difference between:
*La conversación era muy desagradable, así que decidí irme* (*The conversation was very unpleasant, so I decided to leave*) - Imperfective: The situation is presented to the listeners as not completed, as an open box into which they can go and look, so they are put *in medias res*, in the middle of the narrated situation (in their imagination they see the speaker in the middle of an unpleasant conversation and then leaving *before* the conversation was finished).
*La conversación fue muy desagradable, así que decidí irme* (*The conversation was very unpleasant, so I decided to leave*) - Perfective: The situation is presented to the listeners as completed, as a closed box they are looking at from the outside and into which they cannot look (in their imagination they see an unpleasant conversation finished and the speaker leaving *after* that). I understand the difference. In English you can replicate this with simple past and past perfect tenses:
The conversation was very unpleasant, so I decided to leave. (The decision took place during the unpleasant conversation.) The conversation had been very unpleasant, so I decided to leave. (The decision took place after the unpleasant conversation was over.)
All I can say is that Spanish imperfect and preterite tenses include a sense of "past" that Klingon verbs don't have. You can't set up multiple levels of being in the past just with verbs. You need other words to establish contexts.
By the way, how can I say *the conversation was unpleasant* in Klingon? *naH ja'chuqtaHghach*? Supossing this is correct, would it make any sense in Klingon to distinguish between *naH* and *naHpu'* in this context? I would choose a more specific word; I don't think Klingon has one that covers everything that unpleasant does. Examples: baw'Ha'moH ja'chuqghach The conversation makes one uncomfortable, worried, hesitant; nuQ ja'chuqghach The conversation annoys; 'IQmoH ja'chuqghach The conversation makes one sad. You can also say naH ja'chuqghach The conversation was hostile, malicious, unfriendly, antagonistic, but whether that is unpleasant to the participants is relative (remember that SeymoH QeH.)
If I say naH ja'chuqghach, vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq* The conversation was hostile, so I decided to leave, I'm saying the conversation's quality of hostility prompted me to leave, NOT that I left during the conversation. I might have left during the conversation or afterward. If I want to specify whether the leaving took place during or after the conversation, I have to express this with other words than the verbs:
DaSjaj naH ja'chuqghach, ngugh vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq. On Monday, the conversation was hostile, so I decided to leave at that time. DaSjaj naH ja'chuqghach, povjaj vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq. On Monday, the conversation was hostile, so on Tuesday I decided to leave.
2. *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* could have two interpretations, right?: *Yesterday, I ate at 12 pm* (perfective) or *Yesterday, I had (already) eaten at 12 pm*. Is context (or maybe adding something like *wejHa'*) the only way to distinguish these meanings? wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu' means that you ate lunch at noon, not that you had already eaten lunch when noon rolled around.
3. I discussed this in another thread, I only want to be sure I understood it correctly: Although the sentence in 2 has for the past those two interpretations (perfective not perfect and perfective perfect), for the future (despite the fact this could be otherway in other languages) there is in Klingon only a *perfective perfect* interpretation (not a *perfective not perfect* one): *wa'leS rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* can only be *Tomorrow, I will have eaten at 12 pm*, right? It just so happens that in English we have only one kind of perfective future tense: the future perfect. This doesn't affect what the Klingon means; it only affects our translations of the Klingon. Without any time context given, jISoppu' means that I perform an act of eating, expressed as a completed whole with no view of the flow of time within it. It can equally take place in the past, present, or future without any change in meaning. It's just the case that when translating into other languages that DO change tenses based on past, present, and future, you don't get equal treatment of Klingon perfective.
So, when I translate jISoppu' into all possible English sentences, not all the output sentences have equal meaning, and there aren't an equal number in the past, present, or future, because English doesn't treat the past, present, and future identically.
ENGLISH PAST TENSES Simple past: I ate. Past perfect: I had eaten.
ENGLISH PRESENT TENSES Present perfect: I have eaten.
ENGLISH FUTURE TENSES Future perfect: I will have eaten.
None of these English sentences quite capture the exact meaning of jISoppu', just as how no Klingon form of Sop can quite capture the exact meaning of I ate. That's the nature of translation.
-- 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, charghwI', for your contribution. I always appreciate a lot translation suggestions from people with such long experience with the language.
SuStel:
I just want to give an example of this and if you say: *Ok, maybe that's possible in Spanish, but in Klingon we don't do that*, then I won't do that in Klingon :-) Okay, maybe that's possible in Spanish, but in Klingon we haven't seen Okrand doing that. That's as definitive as I can get.
:-) Ok!
I understand the difference. In English you can replicate this with simple past and past perfect tenses: The conversation was very unpleasant, so I decided to leave. (The decision took place during the unpleasant conversation.) The conversation had been very unpleasant, so I decided to leave. (The decision took place after the unpleasant conversation was over.) All I can say is that Spanish imperfect and preterite tenses include a sense of "past" that Klingon verbs don't have. You can't set up multiple levels of being in the past just with verbs. You need other words to establish contexts.
So the way to distinguish in Klingon between *The conversation was very unpleasant* and *The conversation had been very unpleasant* is adding time context, as you do in your examples:
DaSjaj naH ja'chuqghach, ngugh vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq. On Monday, the conversation was hostile, so I decided to leave at that time. DaSjaj naH ja'chuqghach, povjaj vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq. On Monday, the conversation was hostile, so on Tuesday I decided to leave.
Right?
I would choose a more specific word; I don't think Klingon has one that covers everything that unpleasant does. Examples: baw'Ha'moH ja'chuqghach The conversation makes one uncomfortable, worried, hesitant; [...]
I like this one! By the way, I know we shouldn't use *-ghach* with verbs without a suffix, that's why I added *-taH*, but (I see it now) since *ja'chuq* has already a suffix, it wouldn't have been necessary. Is there any important difference between *ja'chuqghach* and *ja'chuqtaHghach*?
You can also say naH ja'chuqghach The conversation was hostile, malicious, unfriendly, antagonistic, but whether that is unpleasant to the participants is relative (remember that SeymoH QeH.)
From a Klingon perspective, that's a good point...
2. *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* could have two interpretations, right?: *Yesterday, I ate at 12 pm* (perfective) or *Yesterday, I had (already) eaten at 12 pm*. Is context (or maybe adding something like *wejHa'*) the only way to distinguish these meanings? wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu' means that you ate lunch at noon, not that you had already eaten lunch when noon rolled around.
Ok. I think that's the same problem again. Without further context, *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* means *Yesterday, I ate at 12 pm*. So if I want to get the meaning *Yesterday, I had already eaten at 12 pm*, I must add something. Maybe *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' wejHa' jISoppu'*?
3. I discussed this in another thread, I only want to be sure I understood it correctly: Although the sentence in 2 has for the past those two interpretations (perfective not perfect and perfective perfect), for the future (despite the fact this could be otherway in other languages) there is in Klingon only a *perfective perfect* interpretation (not a *perfective not perfect* one): *wa'leS rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* can only be *Tomorrow, I will have eaten at 12 pm*, right? It just so happens that in English we have only one kind of perfective future tense: the future perfect. This doesn't affect what the Klingon means; it only affects our translations of the Klingon. Without any time context given, jISoppu' means that I perform an act of eating, expressed as a completed whole with no view of the flow of time within it. It can equally take place in the past, present, or future without any change in meaning. It's just the case that when translating into other languages that DO change tenses based on past, present, and future, you don't get equal treatment of Klingon perfective.
Ok. But if *wa'leS rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* translates as *Tomorrow, I will have eaten at 12 pm*, we are forcing the interpretation that the eating will be finished *before* 12 pm and that's exactly the opposite we do in the past: Without further context *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* means *Yesterday, I ate at 12 pm*, not *Yesterday, I had eaten at 12 pm*. Am I missing something?
On 4/12/2022 10:48 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
SuStel:
I understand the difference. In English you can replicate this with simple past and past perfect tenses: The conversation was very unpleasant, so I decided to leave. (The decision took place during the unpleasant conversation.) The conversation had been very unpleasant, so I decided to leave. (The decision took place after the unpleasant conversation was over.) All I can say is that Spanish imperfect and preterite tenses include a sense of "past" that Klingon verbs don't have. You can't set up multiple levels of being in the past just with verbs. You need other words to establish contexts. So the way to distinguish in Klingon between *The conversation was very unpleasant* and *The conversation had been very unpleasant* is adding time context, as you do in your examples:
Well, the way to distinguish in Klingon between the decision to leave happening during a conversation or after it is to give time context to when the conversation and the decision happen. Klingon verbs happen when you say they happen. If you don't say when they happen and there is no context to figure that out, then when they happen is left vague.
DaSjaj naH ja'chuqghach, ngugh vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq. On Monday, the conversation was hostile, so I decided to leave at that time. DaSjaj naH ja'chuqghach, povjaj vaj jImejpu' 'e' vIwuq. On Monday, the conversation was hostile, so on Tuesday I decided to leave. Right?
Yes.
I would choose a more specific word; I don't think Klingon has one that covers everything that unpleasant does. Examples: baw'Ha'moH ja'chuqghach The conversation makes one uncomfortable, worried, hesitant; [...] I like this one! By the way, I know we shouldn't use *-ghach* with verbs without a suffix, that's why I added *-taH*, but (I see it now) since *ja'chuq* has already a suffix, it wouldn't have been necessary. Is there any important difference between *ja'chuqghach* and *ja'chuqtaHghach*?
*ja'chuqghach*/a telling to each other /*ja'chuqtaHghach* /an ongoing telling to each other/
2. *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* could have two interpretations, right?: *Yesterday, I ate at 12 pm* (perfective) or *Yesterday, I had (already) eaten at 12 pm*. Is context (or maybe adding something like *wejHa'*) the only way to distinguish these meanings? wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu' means that you ate lunch at noon, not that you had already eaten lunch when noon rolled around. Ok. I think that's the same problem again. Without further context, *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* means *Yesterday, I ate at 12 pm*. So if I want to get the meaning *Yesterday, I had already eaten at 12 pm*, I must add something. Maybe *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' wejHa' jISoppu'*?
Yes, that works. Or you could say something like *wa'Hu' wa'maH cha'logh Qoylu'pu'pa', jISoppu'*/Yesterday before noon, I had eaten./ //
3. I discussed this in another thread, I only want to be sure I understood it correctly: Although the sentence in 2 has for the past those two interpretations (perfective not perfect and perfective perfect), for the future (despite the fact this could be otherway in other languages) there is in Klingon only a *perfective perfect* interpretation (not a *perfective not perfect* one): *wa'leS rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* can only be *Tomorrow, I will have eaten at 12 pm*, right? It just so happens that in English we have only one kind of perfective future tense: the future perfect. This doesn't affect what the Klingon means; it only affects our translations of the Klingon. Without any time context given, jISoppu' means that I perform an act of eating, expressed as a completed whole with no view of the flow of time within it. It can equally take place in the past, present, or future without any change in meaning. It's just the case that when translating into other languages that DO change tenses based on past, present, and future, you don't get equal treatment of Klingon perfective. Ok. But if *wa'leS rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* translates as *Tomorrow, I will have eaten at 12 pm*, we are forcing the interpretation that the eating will be finished *before* 12 pm and that's exactly the opposite we do in the past: Without further context *wa'Hu' rep wa'maH cha' jISoppu'* means *Yesterday, I ate at 12 pm*, not *Yesterday, I had eaten at 12 pm*. Am I missing something?
This is simply a limitation of English. In English you are not allowed to say "at noon tomorrow I ate." The only kind of future perfective aspect possible in English is the future perfect tense. English perfect tenses have a connotation of "happened before the named time, but is somehow relevant to the named time." If I say /I have eaten,/ what I'm saying is that there was a point in the past where I ate, and that act is somehow relevant to the present. If I say /Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten,/ what I'm saying is that at noon tomorrow eating will be in my past, and the act of eating will somehow be relevant to whatever happens at noon. Klingon has no suffix that does this. If I say *wa'Hu' DungluQ jISoppu',* there is no built-in connotation that I ate before noon yesterday and that the eating is relevant to what happened at noon. All this sentence says is that yesterday at noon, I ate, and it's being described as a completed whole from a viewpoint just after the eating stopped. If I say *wa'leS DungluQ jISoppu',* I'm saying that eating will happen tomorrow at noon, and it's being described as a completed whole from a viewpoint just after the eating stops. If you want the "past event relevant to the named time" stuff in Klingon, then you have to say it explicitly. *wa'Hu' DungluQ jISoppu', pov vaj pe'vIl jISuvpu'*/I ate at noon yesterday, so in the afternoon I fought forcefully./ I named the time context for each verb to clearly set their temporal order and used *vaj* to show that the one led to the other. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
ja'chuqghach a telling to each other ja'chuqtaHghach an ongoing telling to each other
Ok, but for verbs without suffix we don't have this difference. I mean, the only way to say *the eating* is saying *the ongoing eating* (*SoptaHghach*), right?
This is simply a limitation of English. In English you are not allowed to say "at noon tomorrow I ate." The only kind of future perfective aspect possible in English is the future perfect tense. English perfect tenses have a connotation of "happened before the named time, but is somehow relevant to the named time." If I say I have eaten, what I'm saying is that there was a point in the past where I ate, and that act is somehow relevant to the present. If I say Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten, what I'm saying is that at noon tomorrow eating will be in my past, and the act of eating will somehow be relevant to whatever happens at noon. Klingon has no suffix that does this. If I say wa'Hu' DungluQ jISoppu', there is no built-in connotation that I ate before noon yesterday and that the eating is relevant to what happened at noon. All this sentence says is that yesterday at noon, I ate, and it's being described as a completed whole from a viewpoint just after the eating stopped. If I say wa'leS DungluQ jISoppu', I'm saying that eating will happen tomorrow at noon, and it's being described as a completed whole from a viewpoint just after the eating stops.
That clarifies a lot, thank you!
If you want the "past event relevant to the named time" stuff in Klingon, then you have to say it explicitly. wa'Hu' DungluQ jISoppu', pov vaj pe'vIl jISuvpu' I ate at noon yesterday, so in the afternoon I fought forcefully. I named the time context for each verb to clearly set their temporal order and used vaj to show that the one led to the other.
But then, we should do the same for the future, shouldn't we? If we want the *past event relevant to the named time* stuff, we have to say it explicitly. Just saying *wa'leS DungluQ jISoppu'*, without any further context, wouldn't have the connotation of perfect that the English *Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten* has.
On 4/12/2022 11:45 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
SuStel:
ja'chuqghach a telling to each other ja'chuqtaHghach an ongoing telling to each other Ok, but for verbs without suffix we don't have this difference. I mean, the only way to say *the eating* is saying *the ongoing eating* (*SoptaHghach*), right?
*SoptaHghach* means something different than *Sopghach.* While *Sopghach* is not technically a grammatical term, Okrand explains that you might use such a word temporarily if it made a technical point, with a wink to its ungrammaticality. How to say /the eating/ depends on what you mean. A competed act of eating? *Soppu'ghach.* An ongoing act of eating? *SoptaHghach.* The beginning of the eating? *SopchoHghach.* And generally, *-ghach* is more often used for technical discussions; usually instead of saying something like *nI' SoptaHghach*/the ongoing eating was long,/ you'd say something like *SoptaH chaH qaStaHvIS poH nI'*/they were eating for a long time./ And, of course, we can also say *Sopchuqghach* /the eating of each other.../
If you want the "past event relevant to the named time" stuff in Klingon, then you have to say it explicitly. wa'Hu' DungluQ jISoppu', pov vaj pe'vIl jISuvpu' I ate at noon yesterday, so in the afternoon I fought forcefully. I named the time context for each verb to clearly set their temporal order and used vaj to show that the one led to the other. But then, we should do the same for the future, shouldn't we? If we want the *past event relevant to the named time* stuff, we have to say it explicitly. Just saying *wa'leS DungluQ jISoppu'*, without any further context, wouldn't have the connotation of perfect that the English *Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten* has.
Right. /Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten/ is close to the meaning of the Klingon, but it's not exact. You might say *wa'leS DungluQ jISoppu', pov vaj pe'vIl jISuvpu'*/Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten, so in the afternoon I will have fought forcefully./ English doesn't let me say this without the future perfect tense. If I could borrow the simple past tense, I could say /Tomorrow at noon I ate, so in the afternoon (tomorrow) I fought forcefully./ But we can't say that in English. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
SuStel:
Klingon has no suffix that does this. If I saywa'Hu' DungluQ jISoppu',there is no built-in connotation that I ate before noon yesterday and that the eating is relevant to what happened at noon. All this sentence says is that yesterday at noon, I ate, and it's being described as a completed whole from a viewpoint just after the eating stopped. If I saywa'leS DungluQ jISoppu',I'm saying that eating will happen tomorrow at noon, and it's being described as a completed whole from a viewpoint just after the eating stops.
Yes. However, -pu' can be used to tell that the action has already happened relative to the "current time of narration". jIvem. ram jISoppu', DaH jISopnISbe'. SIbI' yaHwIj vIghoS. I wake up. I ate at night, I don't need to eat now. I go directly to my workplace. I'm telling a story using the no-suffix aspect, but in the middle of the story I describe an event that happened before the current time of narration using the perfective aspect. Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, April 12th, 2022 at 19.01, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 4/12/2022 11:45 AM, luis.chaparro@web.de wrote:
SuStel:
ja'chuqghach a telling to each other ja'chuqtaHghach an ongoing telling to each other
Ok, but for verbs without suffix we don't have this difference. I mean, the only way to say *the eating* is saying *the ongoing eating* (*SoptaHghach*), right?
SoptaHghach means something different than Sopghach. While Sopghach is not technically a grammatical term, Okrand explains that you might use such a word temporarily if it made a technical point, with a wink to its ungrammaticality.
How to say the eating depends on what you mean. A competed act of eating? Soppu'ghach. An ongoing act of eating? SoptaHghach. The beginning of the eating? SopchoHghach. And generally, -ghach is more often used for technical discussions; usually instead of saying something like nI' SoptaHghach the ongoing eating was long, you'd say something like SoptaH chaH qaStaHvIS poH nI' they were eating for a long time.
And, of course, we can also say Sopchuqghach the eating of each other...
If you want the "past event relevant to the named time" stuff in Klingon, then you have to say it explicitly. wa'Hu' DungluQ jISoppu', pov vaj pe'vIl jISuvpu' I ate at noon yesterday, so in the afternoon I fought forcefully. I named the time context for each verb to clearly set their temporal order and used vaj to show that the one led to the other.
But then, we should do the same for the future, shouldn't we? If we want the *past event relevant to the named time* stuff, we have to say it explicitly. Just saying *wa'leS DungluQ jISoppu'*, without any further context, wouldn't have the connotation of perfect that the English *Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten* has.
Right. Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten is close to the meaning of the Klingon, but it's not exact. You might say wa'leS DungluQ jISoppu', pov vaj pe'vIl jISuvpu' Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten, so in the afternoon I will have fought forcefully. English doesn't let me say this without the future perfect tense. If I could borrow the simple past tense, I could say Tomorrow at noon I ate, so in the afternoon (tomorrow) I fought forcefully. But we can't say that in English.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 4/12/2022 12:14 PM, Iikka Hauhio wrote:
SuStel:
Klingon has no suffix that does this. If I say*wa'Hu' DungluQ jISoppu',*there is no built-in connotation that I ate before noon yesterday and that the eating is relevant to what happened at noon. All this sentence says is that yesterday at noon, I ate, and it's being described as a completed whole from a viewpoint just after the eating stopped. If I say*wa'leS DungluQ jISoppu',*I'm saying that eating will happen tomorrow at noon, and it's being described as a completed whole from a viewpoint just after the eating stops.
Yes.
However, *-pu'* can be used to tell that the action has already happened relative to the "current time of narration".
*jIvem. ram jISoppu', DaH jISopnISbe'. SIbI' yaHwIj vIghoS.* /I wake up. I ate at night, I don't need to eat now. I go directly to my workplace./ * * I'm telling a story using the no-suffix aspect, but in the middle of the story I describe an event that happened before the current time of narration using the perfective aspect.
Yes, and you have provided the context yourself, just as I explained in the next paragraph that you didn't quote. You did this by starting with a "current time" narrative, then adding a sentence with an explicit time context in the past prior to the current time, then returning to the current time with another explicit time context. You did all this with words that /aren't/ the verbs whose aspect is being examined. Just as I said. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On Tuesday, April 12th, 2022 at 19.27, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 4/12/2022 12:14 PM, Iikka Hauhio wrote:
SuStel:
Klingon has no suffix that does this. If I saywa'Hu' DungluQ jISoppu',there is no built-in connotation that I ate before noon yesterday and that the eating is relevant to what happened at noon. All this sentence says is that yesterday at noon, I ate, and it's being described as a completed whole from a viewpoint just after the eating stopped. If I saywa'leS DungluQ jISoppu',I'm saying that eating will happen tomorrow at noon, and it's being described as a completed whole from a viewpoint just after the eating stops.
Yes.
However, -pu' can be used to tell that the action has already happened relative to the "current time of narration".
jIvem. ram jISoppu', DaH jISopnISbe'. SIbI' yaHwIj vIghoS. I wake up. I ate at night, I don't need to eat now. I go directly to my workplace.
I'm telling a story using the no-suffix aspect, but in the middle of the story I describe an event that happened before the current time of narration using the perfective aspect.
Yes, and you have provided the context yourself, just as I explained in the next paragraph that you didn't quote. You did this by starting with a "current time" narrative, then adding a sentence with an explicit time context in the past prior to the current time, then returning to the current time with another explicit time context. You did all this with words that aren't the verbs whose aspect is being examined. Just as I said.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
If you remove the perfective aspect, it could mean the following night or habitual night instead of the previous night: jIvem. ram jISop, DaH jISopnISbe'. SIbI' yaHwIj vIghoS. I wake up. I eat at night, I don't need to eat now. I go directly to my workplace.
My point is that the perfective aspect is used in this kind of sentences, which might be the source of confusion that causes people to think that -pu' means same as "already". There is even a canon sentence which has the word "already": bIHeghvIpchugh bIHeghpu'. If you are afraid to die you have already died. It's not a literal translation, but might cause some to think that -pu' = already. Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio
SuStel:
SoptaHghach means something different than Sopghach. While Sopghach is not technically a grammatical term, Okrand explains that you might use such a word temporarily if it made a technical point, with a wink to its ungrammaticality. How to say the eating depends on what you mean. A competed act of eating? Soppu'ghach. An ongoing act of eating? SoptaHghach. The beginning of the eating? SopchoHghach. And generally, -ghach is more often used for technical discussions; usually instead of saying something like nI' SoptaHghach the ongoing eating was long, you'd say something like SoptaH chaH qaStaHvIS poH nI' they were eating for a long time.
Yes, I know. I think I get it!
And, of course, we can also say Sopchuqghach the eating of each other...
Thank you for the nightmares... But of course, grammatically relevant :-)
Right. Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten is close to the meaning of the Klingon, but it's not exact. You might say wa'leS DungluQ jISoppu', pov vaj pe'vIl jISuvpu' Tomorrow at noon I will have eaten, so in the afternoon I will have fought forcefully. English doesn't let me say this without the future perfect tense. If I could borrow the simple past tense, I could say Tomorrow at noon I ate, so in the afternoon (tomorrow) I fought forcefully. But we can't say that in English.
That has clarified a lot, thank you very much!
participants (4)
-
Iikka Hauhio -
luis.chaparro＠web.de -
SuStel -
Will Martin