[tlhIngan Hol] <<poSayDon>> continued

[SuStel]

I intentionally avoided that translation because it obscures the answer 
to the question. English "will have been opened" can mean it will be 
opened a year from now or ninety-nine years from now. The Klingon means 
it's opened one hundred years from now and that the opening is completed.

Compare the canonical sentence, *wa'maH loS ben jIboghpu'*/I was born 
forty years ago./ It doesn't mean that as of forty years ago I was 
already born; it means that forty years ago my birth took place and was 
completed.

The perfect tense ("occurs prior to the time context") is not the same 
as the perfective aspect ("comes to completion"). Okrand HAS used a 
perfective suffix to indicate perfect tense, but it's defined, and 
usually works in canon, as perfective aspect. His English translations 
don't always elucidate the difference.


On 2/1/2017 11:15 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
>
> Another way to translate the future perfect would be “will have been 
> opened”.
>
> --Voragh
>
> On 1/31/2017 6:19 PM, Brian Cote wrote:
>
>     *//*So, my question
>
>     is: can you use {leghpu'} if the event it's referring to (the event
>
>     that brings the hypothetical into the historical) will happen far,
>
>     far in the future?
>
> SuStel wrote:
>
> If I understand what you're saying, then yes. *wa'vatlh nem 'aplo' 
> poSmoHlu'*/the container will be opened in one hundred 
> years;/*wa'vatlh nem 'aplo' poSmoHlu'pu'*/the container is opened in 
> one hundred years./ The latter refers to a completed action; the 
> former is explicitly not a completed action.
>

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170201/b1f0d076/attachment-0017.htm>