[Tlhingan-hol] Fwd: Time and Type 7 verb suffixes

[Robyn Stewart]

I found it interesting that Marc in TKD says that aspectless verbs might be translated with simple present or as future, but doesn't say that they might be translated as past. I did find one that he did translate with past, Hoch nuH Daqel'a' - did you consider every weapon?

I also can't find any canonical sentences of the form "[Timestamp in the past] [verb][no aspect suffix]." Evidence against includes, QI'tomerDaq Heghpu' Hoch (in the English translation at least, QI'tomer is being used as a past event not a place).

narghbe'chugh SuvwI' qa' taH may' is translated "if the warrior's spirit has not escaped -- present perfect tense -- even though it's aspectless in Klingon. Not sure what the grammatical difference is between that and nuHlIj DawIvpu', vaj yISuv. 

I started to go through the Skybox cards in search of a sentence like that, (they're on qurgh's site) but I kept getting distracted by the random pIqaD and by things like Hub'eghrupHa'. 

Does Marc ever use an aspectless verb with a clearly past timestamp?

- Qov


Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Trimboli <david at trimboli.name>
> Date: 7 June, 2012 6:09:33 PDT
> To: tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Time and Type 7 verb suffixes
> 
> I've found a couple of phrases in KGT that unquestionably use -pu' as perfect tense instead of perfective aspect. One of them is {nIn Hoch natlhlu'pu'} "all the fuel has been consumed." Another is {Dujmey law' chIjpu'} "has navigated many ships."
> 
> I was just skimming, not doing an exhausted check.
> 
> -- 
> SuStel
> http://www.trimboli.name/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
> http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20120607/24dcacb5/attachment.html>