If I want to write "yesterday as soon as we ate" then I would probably say {wa'Hu' maSoppu'DI'} If I want to write "four days ago as soon as I saw you" then I would probably write {loS Hu' qaleghpu'DI'} If I want to write "four months ago as soon as I hit you" then I would probably say {loS wen qaqIppu'DI'} If the above sentences are correct, then this means that when we talk about a past event which is described by the {-DI'}, then always the {-pu'} is appropriate. Or, to express the same question differently "is there a way for a past event, which is described by the {-DI'} not to be completed, thus not being able to take the {-pu'} ?" qunnoH jan puqloD
On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 12:34 +0200, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If I want to write "yesterday as soon as we ate" then I would probably say {wa'Hu' maSoppu'DI'}
If I want to write "four days ago as soon as I saw you" then I would probably write {loS Hu' qaleghpu'DI'}
If I want to write "four months ago as soon as I hit you" then I would probably say {loS wen qaqIppu'DI'}
If the above sentences are correct, then this means that when we talk about a past event which is described by the {-DI'}, then always the {-pu'} is appropriate.
Or, to express the same question differently "is there a way for a past event, which is described by the {-DI'} not to be completed, thus not being able to take the {-pu'} ?"
qunnoH jan puqloD
Is the "seeing" completed? Say the "seeing" takes place over a couple hours. If the -DI' refers to when you start to see them, the beginning of that two hour period, you would not use -pu'. - DloraH
hmm.. so, if I write {loS Hu' qaleghpu'DI'}, then I'm saying "yesterday, as soon as my seeing you was completed". this means that what will follow in that sentence, takes place after I stopped seeing you. and If I write {loS Hu' qaleghDI'}, then this means "yesterday as soon as my seeing you had started, but it still wasn't completed". this means that what will follow in that sentence takes place as soon as I saw you, but with "my seeing you" still taking place. right ? qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 16 Nov 2016 2:02 pm, "DloraH" <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 12:34 +0200, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If I want to write "yesterday as soon as we ate" then I would probably say {wa'Hu' maSoppu'DI'}
If I want to write "four days ago as soon as I saw you" then I would probably write {loS Hu' qaleghpu'DI'}
If I want to write "four months ago as soon as I hit you" then I would probably say {loS wen qaqIppu'DI'}
If the above sentences are correct, then this means that when we talk about a past event which is described by the {-DI'}, then always the {-pu'} is appropriate.
Or, to express the same question differently "is there a way for a past event, which is described by the {-DI'} not to be completed, thus not being able to take the {-pu'} ?"
qunnoH jan puqloD
Is the "seeing" completed? Say the "seeing" takes place over a couple hours. If the -DI' refers to when you start to see them, the beginning of that two hour period, you would not use -pu'.
- DloraH
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 14:26 +0200, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
hmm..
so, if I write {loS Hu' qaleghpu'DI'}, then I'm saying "yesterday, as soon as my seeing you was completed". this means that what will follow in that sentence, takes place after I stopped seeing you.
and If I write {loS Hu' qaleghDI'}, then this means "yesterday as soon as my seeing you had started, but it still wasn't completed". this means that what will follow in that sentence takes place as soon as I saw you, but with "my seeing you" still taking place.
right ?
qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
Actually, that sentence doesn't get that specific. You don't have a -choH nor a -taH/-lI' on there. qaleghchoHDI'... as soon as you start seeing... qaleghtaHDI'... as soon as you are continuously seeing... hmm. If it was during the seeing, you could use -taHvIS. Don't confuse -pu with past tense. Construct your sentences in "present tense", and then, if it takes place at a different time, whether in the past or in the future, then you add a timestamp to specify that. Past tense is done using a timestamp, not by using suffixes. - DloraH
DloraH:
Construct your sentences in "present tense", and then, if it takes place at a different time, whether in the past or in the future, then you add a timestamp to specify that.
this is a good advice, and I'll definitely do that from now on; aspect is one of the most difficult things to comprehend, because (as strange as this may sound) I don't understand what it is I'm not able to understand in the first place. (if this actually makes sense).. qunnoH jan puqloD On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:18 AM, DloraH <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 14:26 +0200, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
hmm..
so, if I write {loS Hu' qaleghpu'DI'}, then I'm saying "yesterday, as soon as my seeing you was completed". this means that what will follow in that sentence, takes place after I stopped seeing you.
and If I write {loS Hu' qaleghDI'}, then this means "yesterday as soon as my seeing you had started, but it still wasn't completed". this means that what will follow in that sentence takes place as soon as I saw you, but with "my seeing you" still taking place.
right ?
qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
Actually, that sentence doesn't get that specific. You don't have a -choH nor a -taH/-lI' on there.
qaleghchoHDI'... as soon as you start seeing... qaleghtaHDI'... as soon as you are continuously seeing... hmm. If it was during the seeing, you could use -taHvIS.
Don't confuse -pu with past tense. Construct your sentences in "present tense", and then, if it takes place at a different time, whether in the past or in the future, then you add a timestamp to specify that. Past tense is done using a timestamp, not by using suffixes.
- DloraH
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 11/16/2016 5:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If I want to write "yesterday as soon as we ate" then I would probably say {wa'Hu' maSoppu'DI'}
If I want to write "four days ago as soon as I saw you" then I would probably write {loS Hu' qaleghpu'DI'}
If I want to write "four months ago as soon as I hit you" then I would probably say {loS wen qaqIppu'DI'}
If the above sentences are correct, then this means that when we talk about a past event which is described by the {-DI'}, then always the {-pu'} is appropriate.
Or, to express the same question differently "is there a way for a past event, which is described by the {-DI'} not to be completed, thus not being able to take the {-pu'} ?"
Your examples are all about doing something /when/ an event is /completed./*maSoppu'DI'* means /as soon as we finished eating,/ but not /as soon as we are engaged in eating/ (*maSopDI'*). *qaleghpu'DI'* means /as soon as I finished seeing you,/ that is, as soon as our meeting is over. If you mean /as soon as I see you,/ once our meeting has begun, use *qaleghDI'.* *qaqIppu'DI'* means /as soon as I have hit you (and the action is over)./ One could imagine the hitting having started, and then you'll call the police as it continues: *qaqIpDI'.* Notice that none of these has anything to do with the time stamp. As always, Klingon aspect has nothing to do with the tense of a sentence. There is no such rule about expressing "as soon as a past event." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
thanks ! DaH jIyaj ! qunnoH ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 16 Nov 2016 2:46 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 11/16/2016 5:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
If I want to write "yesterday as soon as we ate" then I would probably say {wa'Hu' maSoppu'DI'}
If I want to write "four days ago as soon as I saw you" then I would probably write {loS Hu' qaleghpu'DI'}
If I want to write "four months ago as soon as I hit you" then I would probably say {loS wen qaqIppu'DI'}
If the above sentences are correct, then this means that when we talk about a past event which is described by the {-DI'}, then always the {-pu'} is appropriate.
Or, to express the same question differently "is there a way for a past event, which is described by the {-DI'} not to be completed, thus not being able to take the {-pu'} ?"
Your examples are all about doing something *when* an event is *completed.** maSoppu'DI'* means *as soon as we finished eating,* but not *as soon as we are engaged in eating* (*maSopDI'*). *qaleghpu'DI'* means *as soon as I finished seeing you,* that is, as soon as our meeting is over. If you mean *as soon as I see you,* once our meeting has begun, use *qaleghDI'.* *qaqIppu'DI'* means *as soon as I have hit you (and the action is over).* One could imagine the hitting having started, and then you'll call the police as it continues: *qaqIpDI'.*
Notice that none of these has anything to do with the time stamp. As always, Klingon aspect has nothing to do with the tense of a sentence. There is no such rule about expressing "as soon as a past event."
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
participants (3)
-
DloraH -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel