tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 12 09:37:30 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:{ben}
From: "Quvar valer" <[email protected]>
> ghIthl ngabwI':
>
> >cha'maH chorgh ben, jIbogh.
> >cha'maH chorgh ben jIH.
> >Which one is correct for "I am 28 years old"?
>
> Marc Okrand said:
> {loSmaH ben jIboghpu'.}
> "I was born 40 years ago"
>
> What you said, {cha'maH chorgh ben, jIbogh} means literally "I *am*
born...". With the {-pu'}, it means that you have
> "finished being born", so you are born already. So, if you say {wa' ben
jIboghpu'}, then it's also correct: Last year, you
> were born already.
> Every living being can say {jIboghpu'} "I was born", because it's a fact.
When one adds a time, like {loSmaH ben} "40
> years ago", it says *when* the {jIboghpu'} happened.
This keeps getting stated quite confidently by list members, but it has no
basis in the Klingon language.
> {jIbogh}
> "I'm born"
> ("I'm being born")
Wrong.
jIbogh
I am born.
I was born.
I will be born.
It's not just one of these. Which of these it is is unstated.
> {jIboghpu'}
> "I have been born"
> ("the action of being born is completed")
Or "I will have been born" or "I had been born." The sentence doesn't say;
it could be any of these.
> {loSmaH ben jIboghpu'.}
> "I was born 40 years ago"
> ("it was 40 years ago that I have been born")
It means "40 years ago I had been born." The /loSmaH ben/ provides tense
for the English translation.
I see no reason why people should have seen Okrand's sentence and concluded
that the /-pu'/ was specially required. In English I would say "I was born
29 years ago," but it's only an approximation. In Klingon I can say
/cha'maH Hut ben jIbogh/ and it's EXACTLY the same sentence.
Don't bother to drag out the "Klingons may be inaccurate, but they are never
approximate" line. /cha'maH Hut ben jIboghpu'/ doesn't make the sentence
one whit more precise (maybe a little less literally erroneous, but not any
more precise). /wa'Hu' jIboghpu'/ is, in this literal-minded
interpretation, just as useful a sentence, but it's not practical at all.
And I don't find Okrand's sentence to be completely wrong, either. /-pu'/
indicates a completed action, NOT necessarily one that occurred prior to the
time context, though that is usually the case.
To sum up: Okrand's use of /-pu'/ is not the ultimate truth about telling
your age. In fact, it's probably not even right. He goofed again.
SuStel
Stardate 3117.4