tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 11 01:40:29 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: cha'DIch KLBC rI' BG
- From: Qov <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: cha'DIch KLBC rI' BG
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:29:03 -0700
> >I think he should have left of the -pu'.
> Now that I look at it again, I think you're
> right. Since all three sentences have it, probably none need it (or else
only the > first needs it, and the others can inherit its time context).
Aaah, no, there is no time context implied by -pu'. It's RELATIVE
COMPLETION. The time context is provided by time words.
wa' ben bu' muHlu'.
A year ago the sergeant was executed.
wa'Hu' bu' tlhabmoH neH ta', 'a muHlu'pu'mo' DuHbe'.
Yesterday the emperor wanted to free the sergeant, but as he had been
executed, it was impossible.
wa'leS Sogh muHlu'.
Tomorrow the lieutenant will be executed.
wa' nem Sogh tlhabmoH neH rewbe', 'a muHlu'pu'mo' DuHbe'.
A year from now, a citizen will want to free the lieutenant, but as he will
have already been executed, it will be impossible.
cha'leS Sa' muHlu'lI'. wejleS Heghpu' Sa'.
Two days from now the general will be being executed. By the next day he
will have died. [the death might take all day, it's not clear, but he will
be dead by the next day]
cha'Hu' 'aj muHlu'lI'. Two days ago the admiral was being executed. wa'Hu'
Two days ago the admiral was being executed. He died yesterday.
The following should only make sense if you understand that the TIME comes
from the time markers, and -pu' only indicates what was or will be
completed at that time.
yatlhpu'chugh be', ghaH ngejlaHbe' ropvam. yatlhbe'chugh be', QIHbe' rop.
'ach ngejpu'chugh 'ej yatlhchoH, ghuHom QIH.
vagh ben yatlh be'nI'lI'. wej ben not yatlhpu' be'nI'wI'. wej ben
be'nI'wI' ngej rop. yatlhpu'mo' be'nI'lI', ngejbe'. cha' ben yatlhchoH
be'nI'wI'. ngejlu'pu'mo', ghIch Hutlh ghu.
Everything in that story happened in the past. So why are some verbs
marked -pu' and some not?