tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 11 13:57:44 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: KLBC: serving a ship

December 11, 1996 1:36 AM, jatlh jo'Sqa:

> > Duj <QeHjo'> vItoy'pu'.  jonwI' jIH.
> > I have served the vessel {QeHjo'}.  I was the engineer.
> > 
> > I used {-pu'} instead of {-ta'}, because {-ta'} would imply that there was 
an 
> > intention involved when that tour of duty was over.  If you're talking 
about 
> > something which specifically states that you had a purpose in serving 
aboard 
> > that ship, and that service is completed, then feel free to use {-ta'}.
> 
> 	Would not serving on a ship be considered purposeful??  I am not
> positive on how the Klingons work this way, but one would suppose that
> they would consider it an *honour* to work on a ship for the Empire.  So
> there was a *definite* purpose in serving aboard the QeHjo'.  Hence, my
> use of <-ta'>.

I believe the intention of completing the action has to be relevant.  If I say 
{juHDaq jIcheghpu'}, it means "I had returned home," but does not mean I had 
accomplished a stated goal.  Obviously, I returned intentionally, but the act 
of returning is not the relevant goal.

> 	Unless, of course, you're trying to get the point across that the
> *termination* of my duty was the thing that had purpose.  Is <-ta'> really
> that self-referential?  I could then see using <-pu'>, to be sure.

I'm not sure why you say it's self-referential.  And yes, the known goal which 
was completed would have to have been finishing your tour of duty.

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96947.0

Back to archive top level