tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 21 12:14:37 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: paghHu'/paghleS
...Paul:
>Keep in mind, though, that there are some things for which we have
>"constructive rules". For example, none of the canon shows samples of all
>the possible numerical phrases that can exist (there'd be an infinite
>number of them, after all), but we have specific rules that allow us to
>extrapolate their "canon" results.
>
>Hrm. I can't find a canon reference in my TKD (don't have anything else
>with me at work) for a construct such as */wejHu'/ (three days ago) --
>all I have to go on is that /wa'Hu'/ is "one day ago", and /cha'Hu'/ is
>"two days ago". This would lead me to believe that */wejHu'/ is legal,
{wejHu'} is attested. Okrand wrote in HolQeD 8.3:
The words {ret} ["period of time ago"] and pIq ["period of time from now"]
could also be used with days, months, and years (e.g., {wej jaj ret} "three
days ago", rather than {wejHu'}, but utterances of these are not
particularly
common, sound a bit archaic, and are usually restricted to rather formal
settings.
>and that one could continue the pattern. But we don't have a rule for it
>(Strike 1, but I might just not be remembering where the rule is defined).
but *{loSHu'}, *{vaghHu'}, etc. are not attested -- which doesn't mean
these words aren't used, just that we've never come across them. In fact,
I would expect to see them occasionally.
Curiously (unless Maltz just forgot to tell Federation linguist Okrand),
there doesn't seem to be a pair of time words for "weeks ago" & "weeks from
now". The system jumps from {Hu'} "days ago" & {leS} "days from now" to
{wen} "months ago" & {waQ} "months from now".
Speculation: You might be able to say {bIDwen} "half a month ago", etc.,
but then again you might not since {bID} is labelled a noun, not a number
and, thus, might not be able to combine with these paired time words.
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons