[509] in tlhIngan-Hol
boots
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Apr 2 11:29:20 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: (Mark E. Shoulson) <shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 93 10:03:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: Captain Krankor's message of Wed, 31 Mar 93 17:30:40 -0500 <930331
>From: Captain Krankor <krankor@codex.prds.cdx.mot.com>
>Date: Wed, 31 Mar 93 17:30:40 -0500
>Content-Length: 1255
>Regarding mark's comments:
>I considered both of the changes you suggest, and left them out for the follow
i
>ng
>reasons:
>Same thing with the -ta' on chenmoHlu'. My first pass used it, cuz it
>expressed my meaning better, but I dropped it for scan reasons, and even
>without it it still means the right thing; remember, the lack of an aspect
>marker does NOT necessarily mean that the verb is present tense. The -ta'
>would definitely make the meaning more explicit and clear, but its lack
>does not really damage the sentence.
Well, lack of tense-markers doesn't mean present tense, true, but it
usually *does* imply that it's not perfective (i.e. the action is not
completed) see p. 40. There's a fine line of difference between "past
tense" and "perfective", and I think Klingon is somewhat careful (though
not painstaking) about noting the latter. I still think your translation
is correct and acceptable, I just wanted to note those points.
~mark
