On 8 October 2016 at 06:03, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@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