tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 18 18:11:46 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: taghqIj concedes defeat! :)

>According to Matt Treyvaud:
>..
>> But how would it be if I said:
>>
>>  qaStaHvIS poHvam, pa' jIHbe'
>>
>> Using -vam not meaning 'This period of time near me as we speak' but
>> 'This period of time that we were just talking about'. Of course, this
>> sentence could only be used if a time -had- been mentioned, so it's not
>> as usable. Just wondering about the use of -vam.
>
>{-vam} is exactly as spacially oriented as {-vetlh}. If one is
>inappropriate, then so is the other. Meanwhile, I will not
>pretend to say with absolute authority that I'm right here.
>Okrand has given no difinitive example positive or negative on
>this. Meanwhile, my ability to second guess Okrand's intent has
>a relatively good track record.
>
>Okrand can easily decide one way or the other and whatever
>opinions we have would become forgotten dust. The reason I
>choose to consider {-vetlh} and {-vam} to refer to space and
>not time is that Okrand never said they could refer to time,
>and if they DIDN'T, then Klingon would be one step more foreign
>to English. Add that as temporal references, they are
>unnecessary. We can work around the lack of this idiom without
>great effort, so until Okrand says we CAN use these suffixes on
>time references, why bother?
>
>Recognize that what you are trying to say as "This time",
>meaning the time to which the conversation has been referring,
>can easily be described as "this event". You may consider this
>to be a subtle difference, but to me it is far more accurate.
>An event implies a specific time AND a specific PLACE, as well
>as specific action and specific participants. Because of the
>spacial component of an event, it seems perfectly appropriate
>to use {-vetlh} or {-vam} to your heart's content. {ghu'} and
>{wanI'} are very useful nouns for this sort of casting.
>
In TKD sec 3.3.4 p26 it states, "<-vam> this.  Like its English
translation, this suffix indicates that the noun refers to an object which
is nearby or which is the topic of the conversation."  and "<-vetlh> that.
Like its English translation, this suffix indicates that the noun refers to
an object which is not nearby or which is being brought up again as the
topic of the conversation."  The second part of these definitions does not
seem to place any spacial or temporal restriction on the referent.  If
during the course of a conversation we established that a specific event
took place during a certain period of time, then <poHvam> or <poHvetlh>
would be a valid referent connecting the present conversation to the prior
event.  Or am I missing your point?

qo'ran


>> taghqIj
>>
>>     C /\ T
>>    F /()\ C  ...CM is ATMA!
>>   C /____\    ...http://ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au/~cthulhu/say-it.html
>>     GANTA
>
>charghwI'
>--
>
> \___
> o_/ \
> <\__,\
>  ">   | Get a grip.
>   `   |

Back to archive top level