[98115] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] before now
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh)
Mon Mar 3 07:31:10 2014
From: lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh <lojmitti7wi7nuv@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+7zAmO84uNMT7ZrUpyOWLMyoMxqYWtZLMarNHfn7syoLaZKyw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:30:47 -0500
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
{DaH} as a noun means =93array, bank=94. If you use {DaH} in a sentence in =
a position grammatically suggesting a noun, that=92s what a native speaking=
Klingon would assume that you meant. chuvmey cannot be used as nouns.
{DaHjaj} is a noun. {DaH} is not.
I think your suggestion that {wej} implies intent is without evidence. The =
grammar has verb suffixes dedicated to implying intent. Why use chuvmey for=
that? I think that the examples offered you using {wej} are perfect.
You struggle to find a shade of meaning that would disqualify {wej} from co=
nveying what you want. If someone wants to say, =93I=92ve never finished a =
manuscript before,=94 to highlight the fact that they have just now finishe=
d one for the first time, just say:
{wa=92Hu=92 ghItlh vIqonpu=92be=92. DaHjaj vIqonta=92!}
It=92s common practice to use more than one sentence in Klingon to express =
things for which English would use one longer, more complex sentence. Meanw=
hile, in this example, even English is clearer with more than one sentence.=
=93I=92ve finished this manuscript today. I=92ve never done this before.=
=94 In Klingon, we=92d just use different time stamps to refer to times whe=
n different statements are accurate.
lojmIt tI=92wI=92 nuv =91utlh
Door Repair Guy, Retired Honorably
On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:36 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
> De'vID:
>>>>> How would you express "before now"? "I haven't done
>>>>> this (e.g., written a manuscript) before now."
>>>>> =
>>>>> {ret not ghItlh vIqon}? Can {ret} be used by itself as
>>>>> a time stamp, and can it precede an adverbial {not}?
> =
> SuStel:
>>>> wej vIta'pu'.
>>>> wej ghItlh vIqonpu'
> =
> It doesn't quite have the same sense or emphasis, though. {wej} "not
> yet" connotes a sense of anticipation that "not before now" does not.
> =
> "I haven't yet done it" suggests that the speaker intends to do it,
> but hasn't yet. But "I haven't done it before now" implies nothing
> either way - perhaps the speaker intends to do it, but perhaps not.
> =
> Actually, the sentence I'm translating is something like this (the
> original is not in English): "I haven't written on this topic before
> now, but now I have for the first time." (The implication is that the
> speaker had previously only verbally lectured on the topic, and is
> putting his lessons into writing for the first time, which the reader
> is now holding in his/her hands.)
> =
> So at some prior point in time (before the completion of the book),
> the speaker had never written on the topic. But at the moment, as the
> reader is holding the book, the speaker (writer) obviously has
> completed this task.
> =
> {wej ghItlh vIqonpu'} wouldn't be true in this case. It was true just
> prior (i.e., "before now") to the completion of the book which the
> reader is holding.
> =
> lojmIt tI'wI' nuv 'utlh:
>>> DaH ghItlh vIqonpu'be'.
>>> I am not at the time of speaking in the state of having
>>> completed writing a manuscript. Since the time stamp is
>>> "now", the perfective covers any past events.
>> ...
>>> Given the font change and header information, I skipped right
>>> past David Trimboli's excellent recommendation of using
>>> {wej}. It's spot on.
> =
> {DaH ghItlh vIqonpu'be'} wouldn't work for my situation either. The
> author has in fact finished the book. But moments prior to finishing
> the book, he had never written (in the sense of having completed a
> piece of writing which is then made public) on the topic.
> =
> (I suppose there is a bit of literary flourish as he's written as if
> the entire book was written in one continuous sitting or indivisible
> event, so that prior to beginning it he had never written on the topic
> before, and just after finishing it, he has.)
> =
> DloraH:
>> wej does work as long as the context clears the ambiguity.
>> Sally, "I wrote a book."
>> Jack, "I wrote four books."
>> Bob, ... well, is Bob saying that he has not yet written his book, or di=
d he write three?
>> Yes, sometimes context is enough to determine which is ment.
>> Using the negated perfective in the present helps if Bob's quote above c=
ould be taken either way.
> =
> I think maybe you dropped Bob's quote, unless I'm not understanding
> what Bob said?
> =
> -- =
> De'vID
> =
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
