tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 27 12:16:50 2002
[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 msn.onstage.startrek.expert.okrand (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.
DloraH