tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 23 19:39:24 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Expressing age.
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Expressing age.
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 22:40:48 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 15:17:32 -0700 (PDT) "Donald E. Vick"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> David Trimboli wrote:
> > Marc Okrand himself has used the {bogh} example, though he also added the
> > aspect suffix {-pu'}, for reasons which he has not explained yet (I did ask).
I still believe it is the case that, for example, I'll typically
say in English, "I'm 42 years old." So, is today my birthday?
Well, no. I was actually born more than 42 years ago, though not
yet 43 years ago. But a Klingon is NEVER approximate, right? So
I should not say, "I was born 42 years ago." I should say, "42
years ago, I had been born." After all, 42 years before today, I
had already been born. Now, if you ask me how old I am on my
birthday, I'd omit the {-pu'}...
> It's appropriate, in that you were born, you are finished being
> born, and the action is definitely complete. Also, I seem to remember
> him mentioning that the -pu' suffix was originally intended to be past
> tense before he abandoned tense altogether.
Indeed, I've also heard him mention this parenthetically qep'a'
wejDIchDaq, but he did not explain further.
> Hugh the Barefoot
> Barony of South Downs, Meridies
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Thaddaeus Vick, Linguist to the Masses | [email protected] |
> | | |
> | I could be wrong. After all, there's | |
> | a first time for everything. | http://www.crl..com/~dvick |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
charghwI'