Every time aspect comes up in conversation about Klingon, I try to think of examples in Cantonese Chinese, which also has aspect. Cantonese actually has a finer grained system of aspect than Klingon, so that Klingon perfective might map onto the Cantonese perfective (咗), completive (完), exhaustive (哂), or experiential (過) aspects, depending on context. The completive indicates that the person performing an action has done as much as they can or intend to do, whether the task is actually done or not. (You would negate this aspect if, for example, the person was interrupted.) The exhaustive indicates that the action has been performed to the point where it is actually completely done and can no longer be continued. The experiential indicates whether someone has ever performed an action or not. The subtle differences between these aspect markers allows conversations like the following: Parent: "Are you done [perfective] your homework?" Child: "Yes, I'm done [completive] my homework." (I've done as much as I am going to, and I don't feel like doing any more.) Parent: "But are you done [exhaustive] your homework?" (You may not want to do any more, but is there any homework left undone?) I thought about recreating this scenario in Klingon, and I thought that the combination of {-chu'} with {-pu'} might express something like the Cantonese exhaustive. qup: {bIqeqpu''a'?} puq: {HIja', jIqeqpu'.} qup: {'ach bIqeqchu'pu''a'?} What do people think? Does that convey the meaning? Technically it's asking if the training had been done perfectly, but surely one's training can't be perfectly completed unless it is completely completed. I've always thought the exhaustive aspect to be very useful, and wish we had it in Klingon. The experiential aspect indicates if something had ever been done before. In English, it would be expressed with the word "ever". For example, "Have you visited [experiential] Qo'noS?" means "Have you ever visited Qo'noS?" In contrast, "Have you visited [perfective] Qo'noS?" would be asking if you've completed one particular trip to Qo'noS, perhaps a planned trip known to the asker. (Aside: Using the completive aspect here would imply that the listener isn't going to be visiting Qo'noS any more, perhaps because it's the last item on their bucket list. Using the exhaustive aspect would be asking if the listener has visited every part of Qo'noS! That might not make sense for a planet, but it's a sensible question to ask about a smaller geographic area, like a neighbourhood or small region.) In Klingon, {Qo'noS DaSuchpu''a'?} seems it could be asking either the regular perfective or the experiential meaning. Absent other context, I'd lean towards interpreting this question with the experiential meaning, but if the conversation is about a planned trip, then I'd interpret it as the sense expressed by the Cantonese perfective. However, I'm uncertain how to clarify between these two interpretations in Klingon. {wej Qo'noS DaSuch'a'?} seems like it would be subject to the same interpretations, with the added implication that you should/will visit Qo'noS at some point. How would you differentiate "Have you ever visited Qo'noS?" (experiential meaning) vs. "Have you made your visit to Qo'noS?" (perfective meaning), in Klingon? -- De'vID
Perhaps: ‘op poH ret Qo’noS DaSuch’a’? Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:33, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
Every time aspect comes up in conversation about Klingon, I try to think of examples in Cantonese Chinese, which also has aspect. Cantonese actually has a finer grained system of aspect than Klingon, so that Klingon perfective might map onto the Cantonese perfective (咗), completive (完), exhaustive (哂), or experiential (過) aspects, depending on context.
The completive indicates that the person performing an action has done as much as they can or intend to do, whether the task is actually done or not. (You would negate this aspect if, for example, the person was interrupted.) The exhaustive indicates that the action has been performed to the point where it is actually completely done and can no longer be continued. The experiential indicates whether someone has ever performed an action or not.
The subtle differences between these aspect markers allows conversations like the following:
Parent: "Are you done [perfective] your homework?" Child: "Yes, I'm done [completive] my homework." (I've done as much as I am going to, and I don't feel like doing any more.) Parent: "But are you done [exhaustive] your homework?" (You may not want to do any more, but is there any homework left undone?)
I thought about recreating this scenario in Klingon, and I thought that the combination of {-chu'} with {-pu'} might express something like the Cantonese exhaustive.
qup: {bIqeqpu''a'?} puq: {HIja', jIqeqpu'.} qup: {'ach bIqeqchu'pu''a'?}
What do people think? Does that convey the meaning? Technically it's asking if the training had been done perfectly, but surely one's training can't be perfectly completed unless it is completely completed.
I've always thought the exhaustive aspect to be very useful, and wish we had it in Klingon.
The experiential aspect indicates if something had ever been done before. In English, it would be expressed with the word "ever". For example, "Have you visited [experiential] Qo'noS?" means "Have you ever visited Qo'noS?" In contrast, "Have you visited [perfective] Qo'noS?" would be asking if you've completed one particular trip to Qo'noS, perhaps a planned trip known to the asker.
(Aside: Using the completive aspect here would imply that the listener isn't going to be visiting Qo'noS any more, perhaps because it's the last item on their bucket list. Using the exhaustive aspect would be asking if the listener has visited every part of Qo'noS! That might not make sense for a planet, but it's a sensible question to ask about a smaller geographic area, like a neighbourhood or small region.)
In Klingon, {Qo'noS DaSuchpu''a'?} seems it could be asking either the regular perfective or the experiential meaning. Absent other context, I'd lean towards interpreting this question with the experiential meaning, but if the conversation is about a planned trip, then I'd interpret it as the sense expressed by the Cantonese perfective. However, I'm uncertain how to clarify between these two interpretations in Klingon. {wej Qo'noS DaSuch'a'?} seems like it would be subject to the same interpretations, with the added implication that you should/will visit Qo'noS at some point.
How would you differentiate "Have you ever visited Qo'noS?" (experiential meaning) vs. "Have you made your visit to Qo'noS?" (perfective meaning), in Klingon?
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 2/27/2019 11:33 AM, De'vID wrote:
Every time aspect comes up in conversation about Klingon, I try to think of examples in Cantonese Chinese, which also has aspect. Cantonese actually has a finer grained system of aspect than Klingon, so that Klingon perfective might map onto the Cantonese perfective (咗), completive (完), exhaustive (哂), or experiential (過) aspects, depending on context.
The completive indicates that the person performing an action has done as much as they can or intend to do, whether the task is actually done or not. (You would negate this aspect if, for example, the person was interrupted.) The exhaustive indicates that the action has been performed to the point where it is actually completely done and can no longer be continued. The experiential indicates whether someone has ever performed an action or not.
The subtle differences between these aspect markers allows conversations like the following:
Parent: "Are you done [perfective] your homework?" Child: "Yes, I'm done [completive] my homework." (I've done as much as I am going to, and I don't feel like doing any more.) Parent: "But are you done [exhaustive] your homework?" (You may not want to do any more, but is there any homework left undone?)
I thought about recreating this scenario in Klingon, and I thought that the combination of {-chu'} with {-pu'} might express something like the Cantonese exhaustive.
qup: {bIqeqpu''a'?} puq: {HIja', jIqeqpu'.} qup: {'ach bIqeqchu'pu''a'?}
What do people think? Does that convey the meaning? Technically it's asking if the training had been done perfectly, but surely one's training can't be perfectly completed unless it is completely completed.
In the Cantonese Chinese version, the child is dodging the question the parent meant to ask but didn't quite. In the Klingon version, the child exactly answers the elder's question, so the elder has only themselves to blame if they didn't get the answer they wanted. The elder asking with *-chu'* seems to be asking whether the child practiced perfectly, not whether the practice was totally completed. You seem to be trying to apply the *-chu' *to the *-pu'* rather than to *qeq.* I'm not sure that would be a natural interpretation. The child might respond to the elder's second question, *jISovbe'; wa'leS qeqpu'ghachwIj patlh muja' ghojmoHwI'wI'*/I don't know; my teacher will tell me my practice grade tomorrow./ You might be able to get this meaning with *rIntaH:* *qup: bIqeq'a' rIntaH? puq: HIja', jIqeqpu'. qup: 'ach rIntaH'a'?* The absolute finality of *rIntaH* may connote that there's no more to do. But this could only be used on something you intentionally accomplished.
I've always thought the exhaustive aspect to be very useful, and wish we had it in Klingon.
The experiential aspect indicates if something had ever been done before. In English, it would be expressed with the word "ever". For example, "Have you visited [experiential] Qo'noS?" means "Have you ever visited Qo'noS?" In contrast, "Have you visited [perfective] Qo'noS?" would be asking if you've completed one particular trip to Qo'noS, perhaps a planned trip known to the asker.
(Aside: Using the completive aspect here would imply that the listener isn't going to be visiting Qo'noS any more, perhaps because it's the last item on their bucket list. Using the exhaustive aspect would be asking if the listener has visited every part of Qo'noS! That might not make sense for a planet, but it's a sensible question to ask about a smaller geographic area, like a neighbourhood or small region.)
In Klingon, {Qo'noS DaSuchpu''a'?} seems it could be asking either the regular perfective or the experiential meaning. Absent other context, I'd lean towards interpreting this question with the experiential meaning, but if the conversation is about a planned trip, then I'd interpret it as the sense expressed by the Cantonese perfective. However, I'm uncertain how to clarify between these two interpretations in Klingon. {wej Qo'noS DaSuch'a'?} seems like it would be subject to the same interpretations, with the added implication that you should/will visit Qo'noS at some point.
How would you differentiate "Have you ever visited Qo'noS?" (experiential meaning) vs. "Have you made your visit to Qo'noS?" (perfective meaning), in Klingon?
Experiential-ish: *pa'logh Qo'noS DaSuchpu''a'? *Restricted perfective-ish: *Qo'noS leng Danabpu'. Data'pu''a'?* -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
De'vID:
I've always thought the exhaustive aspect to be very useful, and wish we had it in Klingon.
I think you're over-influenced by your background in chinese, the same way I would be as far as greek is concerned. Since we don't have this "exhaustive aspect" in greek, I find it unnecessary. The way I find unnecessary all the crap like: One word for "the brother's sister mother's daughters cat's dog's" relative. Another word for "the brother's mother's grandfather's who cares" relative. An additional word for "the sister's daughter's targ's fiancee" god-forsaken relative. Since greek (thank Zeus) doesn't have them, I find all these klingon words unnecessary. So, my point is, that depending on our native languages we tend to consider things as crucial or totally unncessary, without this meaning that there is an absolute truth in all this. And being on the subject, I find it irritating (to put it mildly), that while we *do* have words for the "brother's sister's daughter's son in law, of the illegitimate brother of the second alien, who happened to orbit kronos on the day three dogs were in heat", but we can't differentiate between a tendon and a ligament, since we have the same word for both of them.. ~ Capricorn
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 10:37, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
I've always thought the exhaustive aspect to be very useful, and wish we had it in Klingon.
I think you're over-influenced by your background in chinese, the same way I would be as far as greek is concerned.
Since we don't have this "exhaustive aspect" in greek, I find it unnecessary.
I don't find it necessary, either. Nice to have isn't the same as necessary. -- De'vID
ghItlh mayqel qunen'oS:
And being on the subject, I find it irritating (to put it mildly), that while we *do* have words for the "brother's sister's daughter's son in law, of the illegitimate brother of the second alien, who happened to orbit kronos on the day three dogs were in heat", but we can't differentiate between a tendon and a ligament, since we have the same word for both of them..
I find that most lay people don't know the difference anyway. I'm satisfied calling them Hom to'waQ and Somraw to'waQ even though they both attach to a bone at at least one end. Heck, I would even accept to'waQ for fascia, but I haven't settled definitively on a term - maybe qatbogh to'waQ? Jeremy
Perhaps ligaments and tendons taste the same to Klingons. We learned of {to’waQ} from the cooking – not the medical – section of KGT: (KGT 191): While tendon or ligament (to'waQ) that has been deep-fried is one of the few hot dishes enjoyed by most Klingons, burnt tendon is definitely a culinary gaffe. … and it’s use in the common idiom {to'waQ yIv} "chew ligament" : (KGT 119): The origins of the phrase are unknown, but the imagery makes sense, since even with Klingon teeth, to chew (yIv) gummy ligament or tendon (to'waQ) takes longer than to chew most other types of food. The expression may be used as a command, as in {to'waQ yIyIv!} ("Chew ligament!"--that is, "Take your time thinking about it!") or as a statement, often with the verb suffix {-taH} (continuous), implying an ongoing activity, as in {to'waQ vIyIvtaH} ("I'm chewing ligament"--that is, "I'm in the process of taking my time considering the matter"). {‘aD} “vein, artery” was similarly vague until qepHom 2015: (qepHom 2015, p.14): vein is {'aD}. In general usage, this means either a vein or an artery, so a better translation might be “blood vessel”. In medical usage, however, doctors and so on make a distinction between {mej'aD} “artery” and {paw'aD} “vein”. Maltz said that he thought that earlier these were {mejmeH 'aD} and {pawmeH 'aD}, but over time they were shortened. --Voragh From: David Holt ghItlh mayqel qunen'oS:
And being on the subject, I find it irritating (to put it mildly), that while we *do* have words for the "brother's sister's daughter's son in law, of the illegitimate brother of the second alien, who happened to orbit kronos on the day three dogs were in heat", but we can't differentiate between a tendon and a ligament, since we have the same word for both of them.. I find that most lay people don't know the difference anyway. I'm satisfied calling them Hom to'waQ and Somraw to'waQ even though they both attach to a bone at at least one end. Heck, I would even accept to'waQ for fascia, but I haven't settled definitively on a term - maybe qatbogh to'waQ?
Jeremy
On Feb 28, 2019, at 10:44 AM, David Holt <kenjutsuka@live.com> wrote:
I'm satisfied calling them Hom to'waQ and Somraw to'waQ even though they both attach to a bone at at least one end.
That’s how I would specify them if necessary. The phrases seemed obvious to me even before reading your message. -- ghunchu'wI'
David Holt:
I'm satisfied calling them Hom to'waQ and Somraw to'waQ
I like this idea a lot. Thanks for sharing ! David Holt:
Heck, I would even accept to'waQ for fascia, but I haven't settled definitively on a term - maybe qatbogh to'waQ?
I'm not so sure about this one though. If I read {qatbogh to'waQ}, I would start trying to imagine a tendon/ligament which wraps/encases. I don't think my mind would go to fascia. Perhaps {qatbogh qIvon}. After all fascia is a body part too. If we could use {qIvon} for any kind of body part, perhaps this could be a solution. On the other hand, {qatbogh qIvon} could mean as well a joint capsule, the capsule of an internal organ e.g, liver capsule, or even the sheath enclosing vessels e.g. femoral vein, nerve and artery. But I think that context could clarify all these, as long as of course one could take the {qIvon} and use it to mean "tissue". Only qeylIS knows.. ~ channgan qIj
participants (7)
-
Alan Anderson -
David Holt -
De'vID -
Jeffrey Clark -
mayqel qunen'oS -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel