tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 27 11:22:57 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: puqbe'wI' (KLBC)
From: "Steven Boozer" <[email protected]>
> If it's easier, think of {boghpu'} as being idiomatic instead of strictly
> literal. Idioms are common with dates, time and other number expressions
> in all languages, which is one of the reasons that foreigners often find
> them so hard to master.
In TKD, we get lots of badly-described examples of /-pu'/ that seem to make
it past tense when it's not. This is probably another example. While it's
possible that /boghpu'/ is idiomatic, I see no reason to assume this except
as a way to avoid admitting that Okrand mistakenly used /-pu'/ on the word
when he shouldn't have.
I've always found it odd how strongly the list's community thinks that that
/-pu'/ MUST BE THERE and how it supposedly makes perfect sense. If it's an
idiom, fine. But we have no evidence of that, and the meaning doesn't
support the translation.
Unless you want to agree that /wa'Hu' bIboghpu'/ is true . . . !
SuStel
Stardate 2906.8