tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 23 08:14:07 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DIvI' Hol mughmeH: any more
QeS:
> >> {ret qagh SoptaH, 'ach DaH Sopqa'be'}
> >> "he used to eat gagh, but now he doesn't eat it again/any more".
Voragh:
> >I do like this use of {ret} "period of time ago" for "used to", but
> >unfortunately I don't think we can use it like this without a "specific
> >time unit":
QeS:
>Interesting, particularly in view of the canon you cite. It'd be a shame not
>to be able to do this, particularly since {ret} and {pIq} as timestamps seem
>to be the simplest way of positioning an action WRT what we'd call "tense",
>and also seems a very neat way of dealing with the "used to" of English.
>Although I suppose using {Hu'} and {ben} on their own are somewhat jarring;
I've always liked *{ben law'(qu')} "(many) many years ago, (long) long ago"
which I've occasionally seen on this list as a formula to start a
story. Sort of an Klingon equivalent to English "once upon a time",
Russian *davnym davno*, etc.
>what do we do about something like {ben voDleH mangghom vItlhej}? While the
>English "in years past, I would accompany the Emperor's army" jumps
>instantly to mind, I'm really not sure that's what the Klingon is saying,
>even if it were grammatical.
Others have suggested using unmodified "time nouns" like this as tense
markers - perhaps a feature of an earlier stage of the language? - but I'm
pretty sure you need to limit them in some way. Okrand doesn't say you
absolutely require a number, although all examples that I know of do in
fact follow numbers (and only numbers).
Normally I'm the one arguing from canon, but I wonder if you can use words
like {law'} "be many", {puS} "be few" or even {'op} "some, an unknown or
unspecified quantity" with them? I know it's a Klingon virtue not to be
approximate, but there are occasions when you need to say "several years
ago" or "a few days from now".
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons