tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 31 11:10:35 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: loQ jIrop
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: loQ jIrop
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:10:30 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
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