tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 05 04:45:12 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}
• Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 07:40:17 -0500
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

ja' Doq:

> {qaStaHvIS wa'maH chorgh DIS moHpu'...} does not mean "He's been ugly
> for eighteen years..."

While I completely agree with your intuition here, the truth is that  
we have canon which supports such a phrase.

Skybox card S8: Bat'telh - Klingon Sword of Honor
{...yIntaHvIS qeylIS'e' lIjlaHbe'bogh vay' batlh 'etlhvam  
chenmoHlu'pu'.}
"...this sword of honor descends from the time of Kahless the  
Unforgettable."

There's only one reasonable way to interpret this.  It requires that  
the aspect suffix on the main verb be applied to the entire sentence,  
subordinate clauses and all.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}
    • From: Qov <[email protected]>
  • Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}
    • From: Doq <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}
    • From: QeS 'utlh <[email protected]>
  • Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}
    • From: Doq <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Klingon WOTD: wIgh (noun)
• Next by Date: Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}
• Previous by thread: Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}
• Next by thread: Re: usage of type-7 aspect suffix {-pu}
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level