tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 14 16:30:54 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: A question of duration.
- From: Robert Darke <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: A question of duration.
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 17:37:18 +0100 (BST)
- Organization: Parallel Dimensions
Robert Darke wrote:
> >wa' -- majatlhchuqpu' = We spoke to each other.
> >cha' -- poH nI' = A long period of time.
> >
> >chay' <We spoke [to each other] at length> vIjatlhlaH ?
And Alan Anderson replied:
> {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.
I think that {ja'chuq} implies too much of a deliberate "meeting". Provided
the translation works I think I'll stick with {jatlh}.
> 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."
Uhuh. I see. But ... doesn't "we have been speaking [to] one another"
equate to "we spoke to one another" ?? I can't see any real difference ...
is the "nit" really just a case of how exact the English translation needs
to be ?
If not, how SHOULD I phrase it "correctly" ?
nI'jaj yInlIj 'ej batlh bIHeghjaj.
Rob
--
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
| www.parallel.demon.co.uk | "Still a newbie!" |
|--- ---+--- ---|
| Parallel Dimensions | pabwIj yIlughmoH jIjatlhHa'chugh |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+