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