tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 11 20:32:00 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: A question of duration.
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: A question of duration.
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 22:34:07 -0500
Roberte Darke writes:
>wa' -- majatlhchuqpu' = We spoke to each other.
>cha' -- poH nI' = A long period of time.
>
>chay' <We spoke [to each other] at length> vIjatlhlaH ?
"Four thousand throats may be cut in one night by a running man."
{qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD}.
>From this canon proverb, we see that the idea of duration can be expressed
using the phrase {qaStaHvIS [poH]} "while [a time] is occurring". Try:
{qaStaHvIS poH nI' majatlhchuqpu'}.
Vocab nit: we have the word {ja'chuq} "discuss, confer". I'm not sure
if {jatlh} can or should work like {ja'} this way, but I know {ja'chuq}
isn't wrong.
Grammar nit: are you sure you're using {-pu'} correctly? It's a pet
project of mine to try to wipe out misuse of perfectives. :-) {-pu'}
and {-ta'} do *not* imply past tense, as your translation ("spoke")
seems to be using. They imply completion; the common way to translate
it in English is with "has/have been", "had been", or "will have been".
I read {majatlhchuqpu'} as "we have been speaking [to] one another."
>(No particular reason, just pondering again ... likewise how would one say
>"We spoke briefly" ?)
One might try {poH nI'Ha'} "a short time", or perhaps simply use {loQ}.
-- ghunchu'wI'