Re: poH nI'

["Agnieszka Solska" <agnpau1@hotmail.com>]

lab Voragh:

>Stephan Schneider wrote:
>> >> vaj jIloS.  'ej jIloS.  nI' poH jIloStaH.  tagha' mavIHqa'.
>> >
>> > don't we have to say /poH nI' jIloStaH/?
>
>SuStel:
>>Actually, you have to say /qaStaHvIS poH nI' jIloStaH/.
>
>Not so fast.  I noticed that {loS} is glossed "wait for" not just "wait", 
>which means it can take an object.  The question is: Wait for what?  A 
>person or a time period?  Unfortunately, our two examples from canon do not 
>show an object:
>
>......
>
>Although I admit that this is not quite the same thing, but the original 
>poster may well have been right, though s/he should have used the object 
>prefix:
>
>   poH nI' vIloStaH.
>   I was waiting for a long time.
>

If the *English* gloss for {loS} is "wait (for)", can't we use that 
particular gloss to determine what the object might be? After all, the gloss 
is there to help speakers of English make sense of the Klingon word.

I mean, as a native speaker, would you really say that
<<For a long time>> is an good answer to the question
<<What were you waiting for?>>?

Consider other words whose glosses contain "for":

{ghuH} "prepare for"
{DIl}  "pay for"

If we assume that the object of these is some kind of thing, the ideas 
expressed by the following English sentences can be easily rendered in 
Klingon:

I'm prepared for trouble
[Seng vIghuH]

I've paid for the food.
[Soj vIDIlta']

But if we assume that the object is a period of time, what do we get?

I've been prepared for a long time.
[??poH nI' vIghuH.]

I've been paying for as long as I live.
[?!?!jIyIntaH 'e' vIDIl.]         (moHqu'law' mu'tlheghvam jay')
[?!?!jIyIntaHvIS poHvam naQ 'e' vIDIltaH.]  (ditto)


'ISqu'


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com