tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 27 12:16:50 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: puqbe'wI' (KLBC)

> Viktor Horak wrote:
> > > nungbogh Hogh boghpu' puqbe'wI'
> > > Last week was born my daughter.
> buy' ngop!
> DloraH:
> >That -pu' suffix keeps poking me in the eye.
> >"last week" sets the time stamp.
> >-pu' says that at the time referenced, the action is already
> completed.
> No.  It means that the action is seen as completed *from the speaker's
> point of view* (in this case today).

That would make it simple past tense.
The -pu' is relative to the time stamp, (in this case last week).

> >"at the time reference of last week, my daughter had already been born."
> Okrand wrote on (December 12, 1996):
>    "I am 40 years old" would be expressed as:
>        loSmaH ben jIboghpu'
>    This is "I was born 40 years ago" (loSmaH "40," ben "years ago,"
>    jI- "I," bogh "be born," -pu' "perfective").  As is normal in
>    Klingon sentences, the time element (in this case, loSmaH ben
>    "40 years ago") comes first.
> {loSmaH ben jIboghpu'} does not mean "at 40 years ago, I had already been 
> born" ...  unless, maybe, the idea is that the act of being born was 
> completed an instant before the time stamp.

I am 33 yrs old.  33 ben jIboghpu'.

Today, 33 years ago was 27 Nov 69.  I was born on 5 Nov 69.  On 27 Nov 69 I had 
already been born.  Thus the -pu' suffix.

Females would like this because any age after 21 they can technically say /21 
ben jIboghpu'/ and not be lying.  The statement just wouldn't be very accurate.


Back to archive top level