tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 14 04:02:31 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jISIv
- From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jISIv
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 07:01:01 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :mime-version:subject:date:references; bh=OObetP0YjxLo3MKY7sXa+ZGxvaIL5KW+RdJcuPtR204=; b=NRM+DZvGZTy/tuneQOUny6eVAFz0RYWW6THHQ/Z/cH+GLcSRJbstM/GJ36Nxc2yLap RHGzZienmVhR5WNfeFOUHj7t8h/6Cwq11tdcXk5+iqQumLamnEn29sXM3SvDm2r+i2Np BhMoYh+DzcEcqy5/ywKubGrXJ+rzjN/W/E+Bc=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date :references; b=aNVjQMQWWs9T7kejeDxUF9Ys9VMeQBYdwuJ4eZIkLh5blWDTBP3iCmFSLc6PDiQHvC Ai3X9nPBly4daomkoOyTkckCbEiQYjpCL4a/Hi5Y8i4drqU7ZzYyHtTUDpBOIwBjtEVn zpUCns/rviYBQCS8zk/gi7DZNngHJKcYDxD34=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
I think of time stamps as either being absolute (like midnight) or relative TO NOW (like tomorrow). I don't think that a time stamp is the right grammatical structure to talk about the length of a span of time between two events, neither of which is now.
My suggestion {qaSpu'mo' tup 'ar jIpaS?} translates to "I will be late because how many minutes have happened?" Is it really that obtuse? You seem fixated on using a time stamp here. You really can talk about time without always having to use it as a time stamp.
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 14, 2010, at 1:51 AM, R Fenwick <[email protected]> wrote:
> ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>> Today, I thought I might be late. I said to myself, "How late will I be?"
>> I considered how I would say that in Klingon.
>
> jIjatlh jIH:
>
> chaq jIpaS. tup/rep/jaj 'ar pIq jIpaw?
> I may be late. How many minutes/hours/days in the future will I arrive?
>
> taH:
>> I rejected {'ar jIpaS} because, though an English speaker would understand
>> it, grammatically, I've only seen {'ar} used adjectivally, not adverbially.
>> It might make sense as {tup 'ar jIpaS}, though that is, itself, an odd
>> grammatical construction, as would be {tup 'ar vIpaS}.
>
> Not if {tup 'ar} is acting as a time stamp, though {tup 'ar jIpaS} would be
> more like "For how many minutes will I be late?", which doesn't work for me.
> It implies that you will stop being late after a certain number of minutes,
> which simply can't happen: even after you arrive ten minutes late, you are
> still late.
>
>> One has no grammatical connection between {tup} and the verb.
>
> There's never an overt grammatical connection between a time stamp noun and
> the main verb of the clause it modifies.
>
>> I could even stretch it to {qaSpu'mo' tup 'ar jIpaS?} It's a little awkward,
>> but it carries the meaning clearly enough.
>
> Not really; taking the sentence on its face, I can't get to "How late will I
> be?" from it. "Because it has happened, how many minutes will I be late for?"
> I can't wrap my head around it.
>
>> So, I thought the best way might be simply to say, {tugh jIpaSqu' 'e' vISIv}.
>
> pabbej. "I wonder if I will soon be very late." Is there a need to specify by
> how much time you were going to be late?
>
> QeS 'utlh
>
>