<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/28/2020 9:35 AM, mayqel qunen'oS
wrote:
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+3=b0UG8o+fXN+vRqYikUyP6uy6qFbkBseTFPyrciGvw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">This is all very interesting, and it clarifies many things I've been
wondering about aspect for years..
But I've been wondering, with regards to how the {-moH} fits in all
this. Please read the following sentences, and tell me if you would
agree with the way I understand what they actually mean:
DevwI' vIQuchmoHpu'
I have caused the leader to be happy, but that happiness is over</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>No, it means I caused the leader to be happy, and now my causing
that is over. In other words, my action of making the leader happy
is complete. Whether the leader is still happy or not is not
mentioned.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+3=b0UG8o+fXN+vRqYikUyP6uy6qFbkBseTFPyrciGvw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">DevwI' vIQuchchoHmoHpu'
I have caused the leader to be happy, and this state of happiness
continuous. It hasn't ended.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>No, it means I caused the leader to start to be happy, and my
causing it is completed. Whether the leader is still happy or not
is not mentioned.</p>
<p>The difference between these two sentences is very slight: it's
the difference between causing something and causing something to
start.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP7F2c+3=b0UG8o+fXN+vRqYikUyP6uy6qFbkBseTFPyrciGvw@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">And there's something else, I'm wondering too..
SuStel:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">jIQuch rIntaH
I set out to be happy and accomplished
being happy, and that happiness is over forever.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I can't understand the "is over forever" part of the translation. Does
the sentence {jIQuch rIntaH} exclude the possibility that the speaker
of the sentence, can become again happy at some other time ?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I revised my analysis after Lieven made a suggestion. It should
be interpreted as me setting out to be happy, achieving happiness,
and then that particular happiness ends. The <b>rIntaH</b> adds
the connotation that the happiness I once had cannot be undone. It
doesn't mean there cannot be future happiness, just that that
particular happiness is achieved and done. Imagine, for instance,
someone going to an amusement park for the express purpose of
being happy. They go, they have a great time, they leave. The
happiness is over, but it was very satisfying. To lend weight to
the statement, the person adds <b>rIntaH</b> to mean that the
happiness experienced that day cannot be undone. <i>Whatever
happens next, I had fun today.</i><br>
</p>
<p>But it's really not clear whether Klingons would use <b>rIntaH</b>
on a verb of quality. I'm just analyzing what it would mean if it
were allowed. There's no rule against it, but there's no real
indication that it would be used, either.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>