[tlhIngan Hol] Vanitas Vanitatum et Omnia Vanitas

[De'vID]

On 8 October 2016 at 06:03, nIqolay Q <niqolay0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy at alcaco.net> wrote:
>> I am very much in the loop. I was there at qep'a', and I have a copy
>> of the booklet from which those images were produced. I read that part
>> as saying that {pa'logh} and {tuch} are the preferred terms, in
>> contrast to {'op ret} and {'op pIq}. That is why I called the {'op
>> ret} phrase "odd".
>
> I interpreted that passage as just clarifying that the new terms for
> past/future weren't used for time stamps, and that if you wanted a time
> stamp referencing the general past/future you would use the {'op ret/pIq}
> phrasing.

Here's the part in question:

{pa'logh} - noun, the past (as a whole)
    Compare: {'op ret} (at some time in the past)
{tuch} - noun, the future (as a whole)
    Compare: {'op pIq} (at some time in the future)

I read that as saying that while {'op ret} and {'op pIq} are used as
time stamps for specific *points* in time, {pa'logh} and {tuch} are
used for all of time (i.e., the entire time *line*) in the past and
future respectively. The contrast isn't between whether one can be
used or is preferable as a timestamp, but what shape the time so
described has. As a language with aspect, it makes sense to me that
Klingon would distinguish between these specifically.

The canon example is {'opleS chovan tujmaj vIDevmo'} "One day... you
will bow for me as leader of our house." ({leS} is used in place of
{pIq} when the unit is days.) What this says is that there will exist
one day in the future, on which you will salute me because I lead our
house.

Consider a sentence like this: {'opleS pongwIj qawlu'} "on some day in
the future, my name will be remembered." In contrast, {tuch pongwIj
qawlu'taH} would mean "in the future (in all of the future, not merely
on a specific day or point in time), my name will be remembered."

-- 
De'vID