tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 05 08:38:13 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: wa'leS as subject

d'Armond Speers, Ph.D. ([email protected])

• From: "d'Armond Speers, Ph.D." <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: wa'leS as subject
• Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:37:46 -0600
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

> so far i haven't heard an answer to my question:
> can i say: latlh jaj 'oH wa'leS'e' = tomorrow is another day.

{wa'leS} is listed in TKD as a noun, so according to the grammar you can use
it this way.  The only example I know of from canon uses it as a timestamp:

TKW p. 153
{yIlop! wa'leS chaq maHegh!}
Celebrate!  Tomorrow we may die!

As for me, I have no problem with your sentence above.

> "ben" is treated differently from "leS" and "Hu'", in that the latter two
are
> usually written as part of a compound word, whereas "ben" is always
separate.

{leS}, {Hu'} and {ben} are all listed as nouns in TKD.  I don't think I've
ever seen a construction like {cha'ben} (compare {cha'Hu'}), but I wouldn't
flinch if I saw it.

That said, we also have this comment from Okrand, in his discussion of {pIq}
and {ret} in HolQeD 8:3:  "The phrase {cha' vatlh ben} would mean '200 years
ago.'"  So the evidence is on your side if you use {ben} as a separate word.

> does anyone have a problem with the sentence above?
> or with:  Hoch jaj rur wa'Hu'/DaHjaj = yesterday was/today is like every
day.

Works for me.

> lay'tel SIvten

--Holtej

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

• References:
  • wa'leS as subject
    • From: [email protected]

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

Back to archive top level