tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 05 09:48:00 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

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

Qov ( [KLI Member]

At 04:40 AM 12/5/2007, lab ghunchu'wI':

I see the grammar as being quite different. The canon first:

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

"While Kayless the Unforgettable was alive, this sword of honour had 
already been made." Or with brutally literal translation, "While 
lived Kayless whom someone could not forget, this sword of honour had 
been caused to take form."  The -pu' is not on an action verb .

>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.

I don't really see it that way. At the time established by the action 
(yIn) in the first subordinate clause, the action in the main verb 
(chenmoH) was complete. It seems a very normal use of -pu'.

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

Comparing it to the canon ghunchu'wI' presented, we have a perfectly 
ordinary subordinate clause setting a time frame, "for eighteen 
years" and then a --- whoa, it's not an action. So WHAT was completed 
during this time?  moH isn't an action, so I'm having trouble with it 
being complete. moHchoHpu', moHHa'choHpu'.

I'd expect qaStaHvIS wa'maH ... moH = He's been ugly for eighteen years.
Or maybe moHtaH

I think with no other context I might take moHpu' on the end of that 
sentence to suggest that he died at eighteen.

While it may or may not mean something, I think all the possible 
meanings can be conveyed more clearly with alternate phrasing. If 
it's a succession of the state we seek, use -choH or an antonym.

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

We're all in agreement with the intuition, then. And I'm glad to see 
that there is no canon with -pu' on a stative.

- Qov 

Back to archive top level