Re: cha'DIch KLBC rI' BG

["David Trimboli" <SuStel@hotmail.com>]

From: "Sangqar (Sean Healy)" <sangqar@hotmail.com>
> What I was trying to say is that either no sentence needed the {-pu'}, or
> else the fact that the first sentence already provided the information
that
> the action was already completed, the others could inherit that.  If there
> were absolutely zero time context, then all three sentences would need
> {-pu'}, as all three actions had been completed.
>
> At the time of utterance, the actions of all three statements were
completed
> (while some of the actions may have been done again later, the instances I
> was referring to were completed).  So should they all have {-pu'}?  That
was
> my first instinct.  But upon hearing DloraH's advice, I reconsidered.

Something to consider: "at the time of the utterance" isn't really a time
context; it's present tense.  /jISop/ doesn't mean "I eat at the time of the
utterance."  It means "I eat at an unspecified time."  Unless a time context
is mentioned, there IS no time context.  Klingon doesn't have a default time
context.

I rather like this.  You can state certain things explicitly without
reference to a time.  You can't do this in English.

> If what you are saying is that the relative time context implied by {-pu'}
> does not extend to other statements (unlike absolute time contexts
supplied
> by time words), then my first instinct was correct.

I wasn't paying attention to the original, but I believe this is the case.
If the time context is "T," then unless a particular statement changes that
context, it remains "T."

I'm sure part of good, concise Klingon is making certain your time context
remains clear.

> So I guess my question now is, is the aspect (and thus the relative time
> context) inherited by any sentence other than the second sentence of an
SAO
> contruction?

I would guess not.  Not unless one of those sentences changed the time
context itself.

SuStel
Stardate 2445.1