tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 05 16:05:30 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:Web/Warriors
Intlangsch <[email protected]> writes:
> >>Do you really think {poH nI'} makes a good direct object for
> >>{yIn}?
>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 most likely a valid object for some verbs, like {SIQ}, but *I* don't
have any reason to believe it's a valid object for {yIn}.
>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?
The response from this "someone else" is riddled with negatives; I'm not
sure whether it is opposed to or in favor of "accusatives of time", which
I interpret as meaning "time as the object of a sentence". I'm sure time
as an object is appropriate for some verbs, but I'm just as sure it's *not*
an appropriate object for others.
As for canon, see TKD's appendix (and TKW p.127):
qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD
Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man.
"In one night" is recast to "while one night is happening". When a duration
is stated, we usually use {qaStaHvIS} with it.
-- ghunchu'wI'