tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 31 11:10:35 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: loQ jIrop



On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 10:14:39 -0800 (PST) Terrence Donnelly 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> At 09:26 AM 3/31/99 -0800, charghwI' wrote:
> >I'm curious if anyone else had difficulty understanding this.
> >cha'leS wa'ben bangwI' vItlhejchoH. I began to accompany my
> >love a year ago two days from now. Is it really that odd?
> >
> 
> I must admit I originally read it as {wa'ben bangwI'} "my one-year
> lover" (like the {cha'vatlh ben HIq} example from the tapes).
> So, I understood the sentence to read "The day after tomorrow, 
> I'll begin to accompany my lover of one year".  

While I find this interesting, I also see it as having an 
identical meaning, since I intended to accompany my love for our 
aniversary. So, when I met her in two days, she'd be my one-year 
love.

Either way, it seems close enough to get my point across. 
Communication is never complete. I see no misunderstanding here 
that would interfere with understanding what I was saying well 
enough to suit my intent. I wasn't giving anyone instructions on 
disarming a bomb. I was talking about what I intended to do in a 
couple days.
 
> >Yes, I do recognize that you can overstretch this kind of
> >specificity, but we have canon for using one time stamp as
> >anchor for another, like {wa'Hu' ram} for "last night".
> >
> 
> I'm not so sure your usage is wrong, maybe just unfamiliar.
> I also think it reminded me too strongly of the {cha'vatlh
> ben HIq} example for me to easily read it another way.
> Maybe a different set of timestamps would be less ambiguous.

Okay, I'm interested in figuring a better way to say that in two 
days, I will have met my love a year ago. Anybody care to have a 
go at it?

You see there are problems with most angles one is most tempted 
to take. {qaSpu'DI' cha' jaj, wa' ben bangwI' vItlhejchoH.} That 
has the same problem with {wa'ben bangwI'}.

Maybe this works better:

wa'ben cha'Hu' bangwI' vItlhejchoH.

Not really. It now looks like a year ago I began accompanying my 
two-day-old love. Pediphilia is not for me.

Do you really think I have to back all the way to:

cha'Hu' qaS wanI' le'. jIlop. qatlh jIlop? qaSDI' jajvam 
qaSpu'DI' wa'DIS. qaStaHvIS DISvam bangwI' vISov. qaSpa' DISvam 
wej bangvam vIqIH.

Oh, but then I guess the {wej} is ambiguous.

I DARE ANYBODY to come up with a simple, unambiguous way to say 
this. I'll be DELIGHTED if someone succeeds.
 
> -- ter'eS

charghwI' 'utlh



Back to archive top level