tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 05 15:57:24 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}

Alan Anderson (aranders@insightbb.com) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']



ja' Qov:

> 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
>> chenmoHlu'pu'.}
>> "...this sword of honor descends from the time of Kahless the
>> Unforgettable."
>
> "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 .

I didn't interpret Doq's objection as having anything to do with the  
a distinction between verbs of action and verbs of quality.  It just  
looked like he had a problem with {V-taHvIS W X-pu'} implying that  
the X verb applied during the V action, while simultaneously stating  
the X verb's completion.

>> 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'.

It would be perfectly normal and uncontroversial if the idea had been  
translated thus:  "This sword of honor descends from BEFORE the time  
of Kahless the Unforgettable."  However, that would deny the myth  
that the original batlh 'etlh was forged by Kahless himself.  We are  
compelled to infer that the sword was made during his life, which is  
contrary to your otherwise quite appropriate translation.

-- ghunchu'wI'





Back to archive top level