tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 12 16:08:21 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: serving a ship
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: serving a ship
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:07:03 -0800
At 14:05 11/12/96 -0800, SuStel wrote:
}December 11, 1996 1:36 AM, jatlh jo'Sqa:
}
}> > If you're talking about
}> > something which specifically states that you had a purpose in serving
}> > 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.
jIQochbe' jay'. Use -lI' or -ta' because it is the directed completion (or
intention to complete) the goal that is important, not simply because such a
goal exists. jIDoy' Hut romuluSngan vIHoHpu'mo'. (I was tired because I
had /I am tired because I have /I will be tired because I will have killed
nine Romulans.) I don't kill that many Romulans by accident, but the goal
of killing the Romulans wasn't the point I wanted to make. On the other
hand: vInaDlu' Hut romuluSngan vIHoHta'mo'. (I was/am being/will be
commended because I had killed/have killed/will have killed nine Romulans.)
Same Romulans (I was tired after the first batch: didn't kill nine *more*)
but this time the accomplisment is what I want to emphasize.
Note that -ta'/-pu' can be translated in future tense. Aspect is not tense.
yIHar 'ej Sov yIlo'. pItlh.
---
Qov [email protected] tlhIngan Hol ghojwI'