[3740] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Qaghqoq
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Mar 10 00:41:10 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: "d'Armond Speers" <SPEERS@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 00:37:05 -0500 (EST)
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM"
> jatlhta' Guido#1
>
> Klingon does not have any sort of tense.
Well, Klingon doesn't mark tense syntactically. {wa'leS qaHoH}
certainly means "I will kill you tomorrow."
> Saying "He is foolish" in English
> *would* imply that he is acting like a fool right now, and may not generally
> act that way all the time, but in Klingon {Dogh} means "he/she/it
> is/was/will-always-be foolish".
^^^^^^
How do you get "always" here? It seems to me that we can be more
specific, perhaps with "DoghtaH" or "DoghlI'."
> {DoghtaH/DoghlI'} means he is in the process of
> doing so. [making a fool of himself].
Both indicate that an activity is on-going, but {-lI'} "...implies
that the activity has a...definite stopping point." (p. 42). {-taH}
on the other hand implies that the activity does not have a stopping
point, and thus (IMHO) gives the reading you are looking for.
> In either of those cases, it is not as derogatory as saying that he
> is a fool in general, in which case the tenseless {Dogh} should suffice.
Why choose ambiguity over clarity, especially when the language (in
this case {{:) ) gives a nice solution?
> Guido#1
Holtej
