tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 29 06:08:26 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ret and pIq
We don't KNOW that's not how they work. We do know a manner in which they
DO work. For instance,
wa' Hogh pIq qalegh.
I'll see you one week from now.
But we don't KNOW that you can't say
pIq qalegh.
I'll see you in the future.
There's no grammatical reason why this sentence is invalid. The only
objection you might raise is that of Klingons never being
approximate--however, that can hardly dictate correct usage. As far as I
can recall, Okrand shows us how the words might be used, not how they MUST
be used.
I've noticed that those people who object to something like
ben qalegh
I saw you years ago
don't seem to object to phrases like
ben law' qalegh.
I saw you many years ago.
I don't understand this; /ben law'/ is no more legitimate a time stamp than
/ben/. It's not more precise, though it is more descriptive.
SuStel
Stardate 1408.8
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Masterson" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 1:47 AM
Subject: ret and pIq
> How are pIq (time period from now; future) and ret (time period ago; past)
> used? I tried using them by themselves as simple time stamps, as in (pIq
> vIHoH) - I kill him in the future; I will kill him. But I was told that's
> not how they work, and I have forgetten how to use them properly.