tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 25 20:21:30 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KliFlash [Was: Re: tlhIngan Hol pojwI' 2.0]
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KliFlash [Was: Re: tlhIngan Hol pojwI' 2.0]
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:21:04 EST
ghItlh Voragh:
> You may have been confusing {pIq} with {qen} "recently, a short time ago"
> which does not require that a specific time period be named. (Our old
> friend {tugh} "soon" would appear to be its complement "a short time from
> now".)
>
> According to Okrand's article in HolQeD 8.3, {pIq} and {ret} follow the
> noun specifying the lengh of time involved:
>
> pIq "period of time from now"
> - cha' tup pIq
> "two minutes from now".
>
> ret "period of time ago"
> - cha' tup ret
> "two minutes ago"
>
> These are words for those irregular periods of time not otherwise provided
> for: Hu'/leS for days, wen/waQ for months, ben/nem for years. We were
> told specifically there isn't one of these word pairs for weeks, oddly
> enough.
>
toH, DaH vIyaj. Although, I wonder if this definition totally precludes the
way
I used it. {tugh} isn't quite accurate, since it won't really be soon. I'm
planning
to do it sometime in the future. If {cha' tup pIq} means "two minutes from
now"
(maybe "two minutes in the future"?), are we sure {pIq} can't mean simply
"in the future"?
>
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
-- ter'eS
http://www.geocities.com/teresh_2000
http://www.geocities.com/weseb_2000