tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 29 07:28:00 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: A time question



At 08:47 PM 9/28/97 -0700, Qov wrote:
>At 14:15 97-09-28 -0700, you wrote:
>}I've been thinking about the ubiquitous {qaStaHvIS}.
>}
>}We know that simple time stamps give the adverb (noun?) of time at the
>}beginning of the phrase, without any marking, eg. {DaHjaj ram qagh vISop}.
>}'Tonight I will eat ghagh.'; {benmey law' maqIHchuq} 'We met many years ago.'
>}
>}To express _duration_, we've always used phrases with {qaStaHvIS}, like
>}{qaStaHvIS poH nI' qagh vISopbe'} 'I haven't eaten ghagh for a long time.'
>
>As does MO in {qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD}.
>
Right, even better; it's actually canon.

>}Recently qoror suggested the phrase {nI'taHvIS poH} for {qaStaHvIS poH nI'},
>}which I liked a lot and immediately started using myself.  My question is, 
>}could this formula be extended?  How about 
>}
>}{puStaHvIS tup} for a few minutes
>}{law'taHvIS jaj} for many days
>
>It is missing the idea that the minutes occur, although this would generally
>be inferred. Compare: {qaStaHvIS tup puS yIn lutlho'} with {puStaHvIS tup
>yIn lutlho'}.
>
>Being literal:
>During a few minutes they appreciate life.
>While the minutes are few they appreciate life.
>
Yes; I guess what I'm wondering is if that inference can be assumed
enough to make this a valid usage.  I don't see much difference between
your two examples, but then I already _know_ that you're discussing the
passage of time.

>}{nI'ta'DI' poH} after a long time
>}{law'ta'DI' DIS} after many years
>
>{-ta'} makes no sense here.  Are you suggesting the period of time has
volition?
>
ghobe' jay'!  HIvqa' veqlargh.

>{nI'pu'DI' poH} and {law'pu'DI' DIS} work for me.
>
bIqarqu'.

>}{law'pa' tup} before many minutes had passed,
>
>There are contexts where you ould have to indicate, as you did in English,
>that the minutes did occur.  
>
How about something like {law'pa' qaSbogh tup}?  (Although it hardly seems
less cumbersome than {qaSpa' tup law'}!)

>}and so forth.  Any comments?
>
>Usually understandable, sometimes ambiguous.
>
   
-- ter'eS

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/2711



Back to archive top level