tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 12 10:52:21 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: cha'DIch KLBC rI' BG
From: "Sangqar (Sean Healy)" <[email protected]>
> 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