tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 05 16:50:36 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jIchegh tulajchugh

ja' K'ryntes:
>...A person's actions can be brief but a person can't
>literally be "a short duration of time" they can only accomplish things in
>a short
>duration of time.  That's how I see it anyway.

Maybe we're reading different definitions of {ngaj}.  The one I'm using
is "be short (in duration)", as given on pages 222 and 256 of KGT.  If
something has misled people into thinking it means "be a short duration"
then I can understand the confusion.

I'm not trying to say "I will *be* a short amount of time."  I'm trying
to say "I will *occupy* a short amount of time."  Isn't {jIngaj} exactly
right for that meaning?

ja' charghwI':
>I agree. If I read someone say, <<jIngaj>> I expect them to be
>young and about to die.

If I wanted that interpretation, I'd say {jIru'}. :)

>I'd be much more understanding of
>something like {ngaj QInvam 'e' vIlay'}.

I agree completely -- something like that would certainly have made the
meaning much more explicit.  Unfortunately, it approximately triples the
amount of time involved in saying it, going rather against my intent!  I
still don't understand the problem, unless I'm missing a clarification of
just what {ngaj} means.  But with all of you respectable people telling me
I'm saying something badly, I have to accept that it's probably true.

>I know I'm not as cute as Qov, but I will offer my support to
>your perspective.

chaq Daleghlu'DI' bI'IHqu'be', 'ach nI'IHmoHbej ta'lIj.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level