tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 09 12:35:11 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: RE: EXP Transmission



On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:35:41 -0800 (PST) Marian Schwartz 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ghItlh Tad Stauffer
> >   Assuming this, we find that in the sentence {tera' vatlh DIS poH
> >cha'maH loS bIyIn jeSlaHpa' Hoch} 

Is this a canon example? Would you mind citing the source? It 
looks really ugly to me. I know that Okrand has written things 
that look ugly to me, but this one is remarkable in this regard. 
It looks to me like a weird word order to begin with (since 
verbs with {-pa'} act as time stamps of a sort and make the 
sentence more easily understood when they come before the main 
clause). Trying to translate it, I get: "Before everyone can 
participate, in Earth's century number 24, you lived."

> >any time period apparently can act as
> >an adverbial (i.e., not just {DaH}, {wa' ben}, {cha'leS}, etc.).

Technically, these are time stamps, not adverbials. While we may 
consider a time stamp to be an adverbial concept, I have not 
seen them classified as such. And a time stamp and a time period 
are not the same thing. We use qaStaHvIS for time periods, not 
time stamps.

> >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}.  

Meanwhile, this could be misinterpreted to mean:

"I slept at 12:03AM."

It would be another way of expressing {pagh vatlh wej rep} in 
military time, the way Klingon expresses time stamps. Again, 
note that you intend to express a time period, not a time stamp. 
"The 24th century" is a time stamp, not a time period. It is the 
difference between an absolute time reference and a duration. A 
duration is the difference between two time stamps. See?

If you really want to make sure someone understands you and you 
want to say, "I slept for three hours," you'll do much better 
with {qaStaHvIS wej rep, jIQong.} Nobody will misunderstand 
that. Three syllables is a small cost for perfect clarity.

> The verb {qaS} might be used best when referring
> >to events, as seen above in {laS veghaS HIltonDaq Hov leng: yIjeSchu'
> >qaSchoHmo'}.  

Please don't tell me {laS veghaS HiltonDaq} is canon. I am 
interested in this example if it is, because it uses {-mo'} 
following the main clause which I REALLY don't like. I will 
accept it if it is indeed canon, but somehow, I do not begin 
assuming that it is. Okrand surely did not do this...

> >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.

No. It very simply points to the difference between a time stamp 
and a duration. You seem fuzzy on this concept.
 
> 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...

KGT is a rather large book. Please make a more specific 
reference when possible. I don't intend to scan the entire book 
to find this reference and without context your reference to it 
is meaningless and just a tad irritating.

> Qapla'
> qoror

charghwI'




Back to archive top level