tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 17 22:22:45 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Was: RE: cha'DIch KLBC rI' BG

ja'pu' vay':
>> 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.

ja' charghwI':
>You are the first person I've ever heard suggest that such a mechanism exists,
>such that you can essentially use "present perfect" in one sentence in
>order to
>set a time stamp, and one would assume past tense for everything else. I've
>never seen any canon supporting this and I've never heard anyone or read
>exibit this behavior.

Canon actually gives us something nearly the opposite of this.  From Skybox S8
"Bat'telh -- Klingon Sword of Honor":

  ...nuja' tlhingan wIch ja'wI'pu' yIntaHvIs qeylIS'e'
  lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' batlh 'etlhvam chenmoHlu'pu'.

  ...According to Klingon legend, this sword of honor
  descends from the time of Kahless the Unforgettable.

The {-taHvIS} and {-pu'} in connected phrases are very difficult for me to
make settle down well in my mind.  It looks like the time context is set as
Kahless' lifetime, but then the main verb is marked as completed, making me
think that the sword was made *before* Kahless.  If it weren't a canonical
example written by Marc Okrand, I'd argue that it was a mistake.  As it is,
I accept it as correct usage, but I don't think its particular variety of
correctness should be emulated. :)

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level