tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 16 12:53:24 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "Qo'noS ta'puq, Hamlet lotlut. lut 'ay' wa', lut 'ay'Hom
- From: Jarno Peschier <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "Qo'noS ta'puq, Hamlet lotlut. lut 'ay' wa', lut 'ay'Hom
- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:53:54 -0100
At 15:56 14-04-96 -0700, you wrote:
>>No, I implied that the book arrived "today" (the day that I wrote that
>>sentence, not today of course ;-)) and that the actual moment of arrival had
>>already occurred earlier. What's wrong with using -pu' in that case...?
>
>When I see "today" I think of *all* of today. I infer from {DaHjaj pawpu'}
>that its arrival is complete all day, not that it is complete *now*. Your
>explanation above says it "arrived today", not that it "has arrived today."
>Using {-pu'} would be fine if you were referring to a time after it arrived.
>It had arrived when you looked -- but it hadn't arrived when today began.
>I don't get the two different ideas of "arrived today" and "arrived before
>now" from what you wrote.
I think by now the problems with and correct use of -pu' (and use of DaHjaj)
have been discussed enough for now (until the next problem with it arises
;-)). Thanks for the information; this discussion has been most enlightning,
but I think I'll drop the rest of this discussion for now. Agreed?
Qapla'
peSHIr
Jarno Peschier, [email protected], 2:2802/245.1@Fido
162:100/100.1@Agora, 74:3108/102.1@QuaZie, 27:2331/214.1@SigNet
___________________________________________________________________________
What was was, before was was was? Before was was was, was was is.