[Tlhingan-hol] Translating the past

[Robyn Stewart]

One of the principles I'm working with on the KLPC course is to teach what
is known, so that all competent Klingonists will be able to agree with what
is taught. In skirting the perfective controversy that raged last year, I
started to write a little piece on how the aspectless verbs could be used,
trying to use TKD and canon to support an aspectless <muQID be'nI'wI'> from
a boy explaining a leg wound. As I looked through canon, what I was writing
got out of hand for the course, and isn't polished, but I wanted to share
it.

I said:
Klingon does not have a marker for past tense any more than it has a future
one. It has some Type-7 suffixes (not in this syllabus), to indicate
completed and ongoing actions. These are relevant today because Okrand
instructs us that "verbs with no type-7 suffix are translated by the English
simple present tense." He goes on to allow such verbs to be translated in
the future tense where context is appropriate, but does not explicitly say
that they may also be translated in the past tense. Many Klingonists believe
that a verb with no type-7 can be translated as past present or future,
depending on context.

Okrand himself usually uses perfective on actions in the past, and
translates them with English present perfect (e.g. vImoqpu' - I have beaten
it). His use is consistent enough and 

There are a few canon examples of Marc translating English past tense with
no type-7 suffix (or vice versa--but I believe he usually starts with the
English).
Hoch nuH Daqel'a' = did you consider every weapon? KGT p. 107
naH jajmeywIj betleH vIyanbe' = In my veg. days I did not wield a bat'leth.
KGT p. 107
Here's an interesting one where I would have expected -pu' but English
present perfect is translated with no aspect:
narghbe'chugh SuvwI' qa' taH may'. = If a warrior's spirit has not escaped,
the battle is still going on. TKW p.147 
Here's one with English past tense translated as Klingon perfective.
tera' vatlh DISpoH cha'maH loS bong QongmeH qItI'nga' Duj tI'ang ghompu'
DIvI' 'ejDo' 'entepray'.
A sleeper ship of this class, the T'Ong, was encountered in the 24th century
by the U.S.S. Enterprise.TM
The relevant part of that sentence is ghompu' = encountered, but I didn't
want to be accused of obfuscating by excerpting.
I would say, "I don't want to resurrect an old argument," but quite frankly
I want to resurrect anything that could result in us speaking better
Klingon. I've been a huge advocate for a sentence with no aspect
translatable as simple present, past or future, but canon isn't supporting
it. Marc has very consistently not used it that way.

It isn't bizarre that so many people would misuse it for so long. Look at
Lieven, who speaks English better than any of us speak Klingon, yet-along
with the typical German learner of English-hasn't got that past tense thing
quite right, often using present perfect where a native speaker would use
the simple past. It's easy to bring patterns from one language into another
or overgeneralize.
And I'm about to go on shift, so I'll walk out of this newsgroup and come
back in a few days to see if others have found canon and justification I
can't. The loudest advocate for greater use of aspect suffixes on past
actions, not just past perfect, has alienated people, but the idea can be
valid even if you don't like how it's often delivered. As a BG who taught
that jIlegh means "I see/I saw/I will see" I have some responsibility to
undo this if it's a mistake. I know I didn't make it up, and I expect the BG
who taught me to be fast into the fray, but is there really enough
justification in "no past tense" to use the aspectless verb in a way Marc
almost never does?
- Qov




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20140411/a61048cf/attachment.html>