tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Dec 27 18:40:10 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
"years old" WAS: Re: KLBC -- jIlIHegh (extreme beginner)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: "years old" WAS: Re: KLBC -- jIlIHegh (extreme beginner)
- Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 21:39:07 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 07:37:53 -0800 (PST) Neal Schermerhorn
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ghItlh DloraH:
>
> >Yes this is good, but KGT updates [ben] to also mean [years old] (n)
> >(just a little extra info to confuse the new people)
>
> DaH vImISmoHtaH! The only canonic use of <ben> as "years old" is in
> <wa'vatlh ben HIq> (or something really close to that) "century-old ale" or
> literally "one-hundred years-old ale". This might just be an instance where
> MO has given a new entry to cover an unusual translation.
Again, I didn't get it into my database, but I remember Okrand
stating that I would state my age as:
loSmaH cha' ben jIboghpu'.
I can remember it because it started an argument over the use of
{-pu'}, which several people objected to. It made perfect sense
to me that you would use {-pu'} in this way on every day except
your birthday, when you would omit the {-pu'}. Why?
On my birthday next week, I will be able to say, "I was born 43
years ago." Right now, I say, "I had been born 42 years ago."
See? 42 years ago today, I had been born. I had been born almost
a year earlier.
Others argued that you could say the same thing for any age
younger than your own, but that is just a matter of convention.
You give the nearest whole number of years for your age and give
the perfective.
> If we look at <wa'vatlh ben HIq> as a N-N construction, we might get "Ale of
> a hundred years ago". Unusual, uncomfortable, but apparently acceptable use
> of the "years ago" meaning of <ben>. Impressions?
I think the ale example was unusual, but I can deal with it.
Meanwhile, other canon supports the use of {ben} as a time
stamp, just like other nouns like wa'Hu'.
> Qermaq
>
> "Qu'vatlh! "Kenny" luHoH! taHqeqpu' tlhIH!!"
You have switched person between these two sentences. Is that
intentional? "THEY killed Kenny. YOU are taHqeqpu'!"?
charghwI', taghwI' pabpo' ru'
Temporary Beginner's Grammarian, December 20-30