1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Klingon
  4. >
  5. "jIghungHa'choH."


Translation:I lost my appetite.

September 24, 2019




I find this one confusing as I don't how the verbal suffix -choH is reflected in the Duolingo English translation for this sentence. TKD 4.2.3 has "...The English Translation of this suffix may be 'become' or 'begin to'." for -choH. This is a really nice distinction to be able to make but there is no indication of this notion in the current Duolingo translation.

Am I right in thinking that "I lost my appetite" could be translated as: jIghungHa'? If not, what would such an utterance mean? If so, perhaps the Duolingo entry for jIghungHa'choH could be updated so that the acceptable translations are "I began to lose my appetite" and "I started to lose my appetite" instead of "I lost my appetite."

I understand that -choH also represents a change of state, but one can say jIvem to mean "I woke up" (change from sleeping to waking) or jIvemchoH to mean "I began to wake up" (also a change from sleeping to waking) - right? So it seems to me that -choH is really about the onset or initial phase of this state change.

There are a more examples of this scattered throughout the first of the two "Cause" sections (I haven't started the second one yet). For example, "The meat is thawing" (it's on the counter or under cold running water) vs. "The meat started to thaw" (I only just pulled it out of the freezer) and "I lost my headache" (the headache is completely gone) vs. "My headache is starting to subside" or "I began to lose my headache" (the pain has diminished, but I still feel it a bit), etc.

Please straighten me out if I'm off base here! :)


-choH means a change of state or action. jIghungHa' means something like I am un-hungry. Not only do you lack hunger, but you were once hungry and now you're not anymore. But this doesn't express a change of state; it just says you're in the not-hungry-anymore state. ghung means be hungry, not become hungry. ghungHa' means be not hungry anymore, not become not hungry anymore.

To express the change of state, use -choH. jIghungHa'choH I become un-hungry; I become not hungry anymore. In other words, I lose my appetite.

If your losing your appetite was a completed event and is now over, say jIghungHa'choHpu' I lost my appetite. Lacking the -pu' expresses being in the change of state rather than having already experienced the change of state. Unfortunately, this course doesn't distinguish correctly between completed events and being in the moment of the event.

jIvem I wake up — I go from a state of sleep to a state of wakefulness. The "change" involved here is inherent to the verb.
jIvemchoH I start to wake up — I'm just starting to open my eyes. I'm still transitioning from a state of sleep to a state of wakefulness.

taDHa' Ha'DIbaH The meat is unfrozen. The meat is not in a frozen state, though it might have been earlier.
taDHa'choH Ha'DIbaH The meat is thawing. Literally, the meat begins to un-freeze. The meat is changing from a frozen state to a not-frozen state.
You can't use a suffix here to mean starts to thaw. You'd have to say something like tagh Ha'DIbaH taDHa'choHghach The meat's thawing begins.

jIwuQ I have a headache.
jIwuQbe' I don't have a headache.
jIwuQHa' I don't have a headache, with the implication that I might have had one before.
jIwuQHa'choH My headache goes away. Literally, I begin to un-have-a-headache. I am making the transition from having a headache to not having a headache anymore.
To say My headache begins to subside, meaning the transition of headache to no headache is just beginning, you'd have to say something like tagh wuQHa'choHghachwIj My headache subsidence begins.


This is great! Oddly enough, it's the clarification on the suffix -pu' in conjunction with -choH that really drove it home for me.

I sure hope they plan on fixing the errors in correctly distinguishing between completed and on-going actions soon...

Thank you for being so delightfully thorough in your response! choquvmoH!


No, they don't plan to do so. For simplicity, they just want to equate English perfect tense (have done, had done, will have done) with Klingon perfective (completed, will have completed). The trouble is, those things aren't one-for-one equivalent.


Do not expect us to make changes to be more in line with how David feels it should be presented - we disagree with some of the minor details on how he would do it. It would be nice if we had space to give a longer and more detailed explanation than we can provide in the Tips & Notes. I'm glad you feel like you have a better grasp after David's explanation and feel free to ask questions in these Sentence Discussions any time you feel the Tips & Notes have been insufficient.


Do you have any suggestions for a more detailed grammar resource for Klingon? I know TKD is the origin/gold-standard, but perhaps someone has expanded upon it somewhere?


If someone expanded upon TKD, it wouldn't be definitive.

http://klingon.wiki makes a good go at trying to explain it all. Some of it is wrong, or one person's opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon_grammar attempts to give an overview of Klingon grammar according to common linguistic ideas.

Related Discussions

Learn Klingon in just 5 minutes a day. For free.