tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 30 20:06:43 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:Web/Warriors
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC:Web/Warriors
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 23:05:45 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:35:30 -0800 (PST) Intlangsch
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In a message dated 97-12-26 11:04:54 EST, you write:
>
> >>Do you really think {poH nI'} makes a good direct object for
> >>{yIn}?
>
> >>charghwI', taghwI' pabpo' ru'
> >>Temporary Beginner's Grammarian, December 20-30 >>
>
> I really don't see "a lengthy period of time" not being a valid object, but I
> am
> not a language person, just an interested party.
It's not so much that "a lengthy period of time" is not a valid
object. I just wonder if it is a valid object for "live". You
live a life. You don't live a period of time. You may live
DURING a period of time. You may live WHILE A PERIOD OF TIME
HAPPENS, but you don't actually live the period of time in the
say way that you wash a car or throw a ball or have an idea or
translate a speech or ... See what I mean?
> I asked someone else about
> it and he responded:
>
> <<There are no contra-indications that Klingon, unlike Terran languages,
> <<does not possess an accusative of time. An alternate form might be:
> <<nI'jaj yInjaj 'ej bIchepjaj! What does canon say on the matter of
> <<expressions of duration of time? Anything?
Well, his suggestion pretty much matches my suggestion. {nI'jaj
yInlIj} is what I think he meant, which is how I translate it.
> Anything from Voragh the canon expert?
charghwI'