tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon May 22 08:34:08 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DIvI' Hol mughmeH: any more
QeS:
>But now that I think about it, Type 3 suffixes should be sufficient to deal
>with most English sentence containing "any more". {ta'qa'be'} "he doesn't
>do it any more"
Voragh:
> >That's just "he doesn't (didn't/won't) do it again".
>Let's say the sentence was {be'nalDaj qIptaH} "he beats his wife". I don't
>have any problem with {be'nalDaj qIpqa'be'} for "he doesn't beat his wife
>any more" (literally, "he doesn't hit his wife again").
As you've recognized, the problem is distinguishing continuous (i.e.
non-stop) action from habitual or repetitive action (i.e. again and again
and again...). The use of {-qa'} doesn't really solve this:
qa'ma' qIp[qa']
he hit (struck a single blow) the prisoner [again]
qa'ma' qIp[qa']taH
he hits (beat up) the prisoner [again]
Interestingly, I can find no examples of {-qa'} and {-taH} used
together. Although there are many examples of {qIp}, they either have no
Type 7 suffix at all or only {-pu'} "perfective".
> It depends on what
>sort of action one is talking about, I suppose. For verbs describing states
>of being without an easily definable beginning and end, like {Doq} or
>{parHa'} (as you point out), {-choH} is definitely the better choice.
>However, for actions like hitting or eating which can be clearly temporally
>defined, {-qa'be'}, or even {-qa'Qo'}, works fine:
Not sure I agree. I suppose the best available answer is - as it is so
frequently in Klingon - context, context, context!
> {ret qagh SoptaH, 'ach
>DaH Sopqa'be'} "he used to eat gagh, but now he doesn't eat it again/any
>more".
I do like this use of {ret} "period of time ago" for "used to", but
unfortunately I don't think we can use it like this without a "specific
time unit":
It follows the noun specifying the length of time involved, as in
{cha' tup ret} "two minutes ago". It is to {poH} what {Hu'} is to
{jaj}. (One might say that these are associated with the word {poH}
"period of time".) These words follow the more specific time units.
For example, "two minutes ago" is {cha' tup ret}, literally "two
minute time-period-ago". "Two minutes from now" is {cha' tup pIq}.
(It is also possible, though not necessary, to use the plural suf-
fixes with the time units if there is more than one of them: {cha'
tupmey ret}, {cha' tupmey pIq}.) The words {ret} and {pIq} could
also be used with days, months, and years (e.g., {wej jaj ret}
"three days ago", rather than {wejHu'}, but utterances of these
are not particularly common, sound a bit archaic, and are usually
restricted to rather formal settings. With longer time periods,
... the words {ret} or {pIq} may be used in place of {poH}, e.g.,
{cha' vatlh DIS poH} "two centuries", but {cha' vatlh DIS ret}
"two centuries ago". The phrase {cha' vatlh ben} would mean "200
years ago". The choice of construction depends on what is being
emphasized: in this case, the total number of centuries (two) or
the total number of years (200). (IMO, HQ 8.3)
> >We have only two examples of {-be'} and {-taH} together, but I don't fully
> >understand their use:
Specifically, why does Okrand used {taH} "continuous" at all?
> > Daq Sovbejbe'taH qIrq
> > Kirk cannot know the location... ST6
>
>SoQvam vIyajlaHchu'meH DaHjaj ram Hov leng jav vIbejnISqa'. (wa'Hu' 'e'
>vIHech, vaj qay'be'. {{:)
>
> > tay'taHbe' 'Iw bIQ je
> > Blood and water don't mix. TKW
>
>This *is* peculiar. Maybe the implication is that you can mix blood and
>water, but that they don't stay (continue being) mixed? A literal
>translation might be "blood and water do not stay together".
Hmm... I wonder if both these should really be {-laH} "ability". But if
so, the correct order of suffixes should be {SovlaHbejbe'}. If you do
watch ST6, listen for this line: Is it {-laH} or {-taH}?
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons