tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Feb 13 18:05:17 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: poH'a'
ja' charghwI':
>...I'm going to disagree and say that {poH law'} IS an
>acceptable term. While the definition is only "many" or
>"numerous", it has been applied to things you can't count, like
>energy. I suggest it also means, "much", especially since there
>is no OTHER word for "much"...
However, a period of time *is* something that can be counted. The
Klingon noun {poH} does not mean the continuum of moments that the
English word "time" can refer to. If you want to translate the
phrase "much time", you shouldn't use {poH law'} to translate it.
{poH} is *already* talking about an amount of time.
We've got a word for talking about the continuum of points which is
called "space" in English: {logh}. We've got a word for talking
about the continuum of molecular motion which is called "temperature"
in English: {Hat}. We've got a word for talking about the continuum
of lifting ability which is called "strength" in English: {HoS}. But
we don't have such a word for "time".
This distinction between {poH} and "time (in general)" is why I do
not want to say {logh-poH} when I'm talking about space-time.
>> The idea considered
>> here is not "many times." But it's not a "big time," either.
>
>But it could be "much time", similar to {HoS law'}.
It could only be "much time" if {poH} meant that kind of time. As
far as I know, it does not.
>> The "right" way to say this is obviously {poH nI'}.
>
>I'd be hard pressed to argue with that. Still, I think {poH
>law'} is better than {poH tIn}, which is gibberish. "A large
>time".
*I* see {poH law'} as gibberish, and {poH tIn} merely as inappropriate
use of a physical quality to describe a temporal concept.
-- ghunchu'wI'