[tlhIngan Hol] jIbogh vs jIboghpu' and a pizza

Fri Dec 21 15:43:00 PST 2018

> Sadly, I am having trouble finding the exact canon for this at the moment.

You may be thinking about this:

https://www.kli.org/tlhIngan-Hol/2012/August/msg00114.html

Bit hard to read there, so I've pasted it below, as well.

Short version:  Given given the sentence

DaHjaj may'Duj mutlhta' tlhIngan QI'.*

#1. Does it require that the Klingon military began construction of a battleship and built it to completion all today?
#2. Does it mean that the construction was completed today but could have commenced at any time?
#3. Does it mean that the construction is complete today, but could have been completed before today?

Maltz' answers

Regarding aspect, Maltz was a little less helpful (or a little less clear). Of your three questions about what the sentence really means, he said no to #1 and yes to #2 (though he pointed out that if the construction of the ship did start and end the same day, that's included in #2). For #3, he said if the <DaHjaj> wasn't there, it would mean that as of the time of speaking the sentence, they would have finished the construction (with no indication as to how long before that they finished), and with the <DaHjaj>, it's #2. My guess is this will lead to more questions. Maltz is always up for controversy.

*The original sentence used {lumutlhta'}, treating {QI'} as plural. I used Maltz' suggested edit here to avoid confusion.

________________________________
From: Qov <robyn at flyingstart.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 00:44
To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: [Tlhingan-hol] Marc on Aspect

Part of me doesn't even want to post this, because the bitterness of the argument about aspect made me feel that I had to betray someone with every sentence I wrote in Klingon. I don't want that to start up again. I told my husband, "I haven't even had time to read Marc's answer carefully and compare it to the question to see who is going to be gloating and who is going to accuse me of twisting the question, or whatever will happen."

He said, "Don't bother doing that. Just post it and let them decide."

Please embrace this new Klingon information and each other, and don't make me regret bribing Maltz for this information.

If Maltz is really in a good mood, lead with this next one. He'll help the whole group--this is a big question--with understanding aspect. As people bring knowledge of aspect from extra reading and other languages, and take apart TKD with tweezers, we have come up against a divide. I'm going to characterize it with a couple of disputed meanings.

<DaHjaj may'Duj lumutlhta' tlhIngan QI'.>

It might be translated as "Today the Klingon military have constructed a battleship."

Does it require that the Klingon military began construction of a battleship and built it to completion all today?
Does it mean that the construction was completed today but could have commenced at any time?
Does it mean that the construction is complete today, but could have been completed before today?

We're ready for some more depth on how Klingons treat aspect, more examples, how does it interact with the negative, what uses sound right and wrong.

Marc replied:
Regarding aspect, Maltz was a little less helpful (or a little less clear). Of your three questions about what the sentence really means, he said no to #1 and yes to #2 (though he pointed out that if the construction of the ship did start and end the same day, that's included in #2). For #3, he said if the <DaHjaj> wasn't there, it would mean that as of the time of speaking the sentence, they would have finished the construction (with no indication as to how long before that they finished), and with the <DaHjaj>, it's #2. My guess is this will lead to more questions. Maltz is always up for controversy.

On another topic, Maltz thought it was interesting that the verb in the sample sentence began with the prefix <lu->. He would have used no prefix, assuming that <QI'> referred to the military establishment in general. On the other hand, if it's expressing that several distinct Klingon military organizations or branches collaborated in the effort, the <lu-> makes sense. (Has Maltz opened another can of <gharghmey>?)

====
So I haven't even referred back and forth sufficiently to my question yet to fully parse that. I have two days off now, then work 12 hours a day again until I fly to qep'a' on the 26th.

I'll just note that we now appear to know that Klingons use the American-style 'group is singular.' <'oH mutlh QI>, and not <'oH lumutlh>. cf "BP regret ..." vs. "Microsoft is ..."

Lets figure out what the more questions should be in a few days so Marc has time to think about them before qep'a'. Sorry if my question was not the absolute best it could have been. I did try to gather some consensus on what we needed to know.

- Qov

________________________________
From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of nIqolay Q <niqolay0 at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 16:59
To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] jIbogh vs jIboghpu' and a pizza

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:15 AM mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun at gmail.com>> wrote:
Suppose I write: {loSmaH wa' ben jIboghpu'} for "I am 41 years old".

Literally though, the klingon goes "41 years ago I have been born"
i.e. 41 years ago my "being born" has been completed.

Lets forget this for the moment..

If I write {wa'Hu' pItSa' vISoppu'}, this means that "one day ago my
eating the pizza has been completed". But I could have eaten this
pizza many days ago, and yesterday is just another day during which my
eating of the pizza continues to be completed.

I remember someone asked Okrand about something similar to this, and he replied that using {-pu'} with a time-stamp adverbial implies that the completion occured at the time of the time stamp. Sadly, I am having trouble finding the exact canon for this at the moment.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20181221/589ee3d5/attachment-0002.htm>