tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 29 19:04:31 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Re: *romangan*Daq mu'thleghmey val
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Re: *romangan*Daq mu'thleghmey val
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 23:05:34 -0500
Biil.Willmerdinger writes:
[on the subject of "tenses"]
>{wa'Hu' lunej} and {wa'Hu' lunejpu'} mean two different things to me.
>{wa'Hu' lunejpu'} means "Yesterday they searched" and indicates that
>the serching is completed. {wa'Hu' lunej} also means "Yesteday they
>searched" but says nothing about the completion of the search, simply
>that they were engaged in searching yesterday (and perhaps are searching
>again today).
No, you too are [mis]reading tense into {-pu'}. {wa'Hu' lunejpu'} says
that they *had* sought it at some point, but they had finished searching
yesterday. {-pu'} says nothing about the state of things at the time the
sentence is *used*; it refers to the state of things at the time the
events in the sentence *occur*. {lunejpu'} talks about the completed
act of seeking it, but it doesn't say anything about *when* the act is
(or was, or will be) completed. {wa'Hu' lunej} indeed says nothing
about the completion of the act of searching, merely that the act took
place yesterday. (If they were "engaged in searching" then one of the
"continuous" aspect suffixes would be appropriate: {lI'} if the search
had a specific goal, or {-taH} if the search were open-ended.)
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj