tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Nov 08 09:22:31 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: EXP Transmission
- From: Marian Schwartz <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: EXP Transmission
- Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 12:18:42 -0500
ghItlh Tad Stauffer
> Assuming this, we find that in the sentence {tera' vatlh DIS poH
>cha'maH loS bIyIn jeSlaHpa' Hoch} any time period apparently can act as
>an adverbial (i.e., not just {DaH}, {wa' ben}, {cha'leS}, etc.).
>Although I think we knew this already, it suggests that we don't need to
>use {qaStaHvIS} for time as much as I think we've been doing. That is,
>rather than saying {qaStaHvIS wej rep, jIQong} we might be able to say
>just {wej rep jIQong}. The verb {qaS} might be used best when referring
>to events, as seen above in {laS veghaS HIltonDaq Hov leng: yIjeSchu'
>qaSchoHmo'}. The only other canon that I know of that uses [{qaStaHvIS}
>+ a time period] is in {qaStaHvIS wa' ram, loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh
>loD}, and in this case I look at {wa' ram} as focusing on the continuing
>passage of time, rather than on when the man slits the throats.
I remember also that in KGT we find the idiom "wa'maH cha' pemmey wa'maH
cha' rammey je". It doesn't say it must be used with {qaStaHvIS}, but it's
rather suggestive...
Qapla'
qoror