tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 05 08:11:07 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: wa'leS as noun

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: wa'leS as noun
• Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 11:10:01 -0400
• References: <[email protected]>

From: "De'vID jonwI'" <[email protected]>

> QeS lagh:
> >>I think you can; the KLI website uses {ben qep'a'} to say "past
> >>{qep'a'mey}". Time stamp nouns may behave oddly, but they are true
nouns,
> >>with everything that implies. We have no supporting canon that I'm aware
> >>of,
> >>but have a look at the address:
> >>
> >>/stuff/benqepa.html
>
> SuStel:
> >We do have canon:
> >
> >cha'vatlh ben HIq vItlhutlh.
> >I will drink two-century-old ale. (Conversational Klingon)
> >
> >According to pojwI' (I haven't got my books with me), /ben/ is defined as
> >"years ago (n)" on TKD pp. 80, 161 and "years old (n)" on KGT pp. 211,
264.
>
> Can this word begin a noun-noun construction, or does it have to be
> preceded by a number?  In other words, is <ben qep'a'> a stretch of
> the grammar, or is it grounded in a rule or canon example?  Is <ben>
> a time stamp in and of itself, or is it only so when it refers to a
> specific number of years ago?

We have no data.

There are no rules to prohibit such a construction, but there are no known
examples of such usage.  We have very little data on using /ben/ in this
way, so a lack of evidence is not really evidence that it doesn't happen.

SuStel
Stardate 4261.8

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: wa'leS as noun
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: wa'leS as noun
    • From: "De'vID jonwI'" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: wa'leS as subject
• Next by Date: Re: it; SIS
• Previous by thread: Re: wa'leS as noun
• Next by thread: Re: wa'leS as noun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level