tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 24 12:46:43 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Topic (was: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007)
- From: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Topic (was: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007)
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:44:57 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=reyoaqgtxrUMkKXB3QUrjA9nbERD/YEgqljaAAi7R6QLcJWaV/siWsjLsChRieCq; h=Received:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
On Feb 24, 2007, at 11:02 AM, Agnieszka Solska wrote:
> Doq:
>
>> It also suggests that perhaps we can use {-'e'} on a time stamp
>> so that we
>> can be less frequently forced to use the {qaStaHvIS} device. In
>> other
>> words:
>>
>> wa'ben qatoy'taH. "A year ago, I was serving you."
>> wa'ben'e' qatoy'taH. I have served you for the past year.
>
> Based on the description of {–'e'} in TKD plus the canon
> examples of its use, {wa'ben'e' qatoy'taH} can still be
> interpreted as "It was a year ago that I was serving you,"
> the implication being that it was not, say, a month ago,
> (with -'e' marking focus, rather than topic).
Has anyone noticed that we tend to use {qaStaHvIS wa'ben} to mean
"While last year happened", but technically, this can still be
interpreted as "While the moment that occurred a year ago happened".
There is no way to disambiguate the moment that occurred a year ago
vs. all time between that moment and now. Technically, we have no
word for the latter meaning. We just pretend like we do when we use
{qaStaHvIS wa'ben}.
My point is, if we pretend that we are talking about the entire span
of a year with {qaStaHvIS}, which we made up without any canon or
approval from Okrand, then why not use the {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun
law' Hoch Dun puS} canon example to express the idea that using {'e'}
as topic and not focus, it can set the boundaries for an otherwise
infinite statement so that {wa'ben'e' qatoy'taH} would generally be
interpreted as "I have served you for the past year."?
Please point out why the use of {-'e'} is inferior to the use of
{qaStaHvIS}, since the former has some canon backing it and the
latter doesn't.
>> The whole issue is that {wa'ben} (or {wa' ben}, (...)
>> can point to the moment that occurred a year ago, or it can point
>> to the
>> duration
>
> Hmm, I've always thought that such words as {ben/nem},
> {wen/waQ} cannot be used to indicate duration. Afer all,
> the expressions used in their English glosses are
> "years ago/from now", "months ago/from now," not
> "for the period of ... years/months". Besides,
> we do have words like {DIS} or {jar}, which refer
> to *periods* of time. That is why, to indicate
> duration in "I have served you for the past year"
> I would use {qaStaHvIS} (BTW I fail to see the merits
> of trying to use it less frequetly) and say either
>
> {qaStaHvIS wa' DIS qatoy'taH} or
> {qatoy'taH qaStaHvIS wa' DIS}
Well, there is the small matter of not knowing whether you are
talking about last year, next year, or a period one year long that
occurred fifty years ago or will occur fifty years from now. {DIS}
has no time stamp. It is only a duration.
> To be really emphatic I might add an otherwise
> redundant (poH):
>
> qatoy'taH qaStaHvIS wa' DIS poH.
Eeeew.
> Naturally, since Klingon doesn't mark tense these sentences would
> also mean
> "I served you for one one year" or "I will be serving you for one
> year".
>
> To me, the "topic" interpretation of {wa'ben'e'} in {wa'ben'e'
> qatoy'taH}
> would only be "As for last year, I was serving you".
Even in English, that can be interpreted to refer to the entire time-
span between the moment that occurred a year ago and now. I think
that we are putting an elephant under a microscope. I doubt that
Okrand really expected {wa'ben} to be exclusively interpreted to
refer to one moment a year ago. I think he likes words to be more
generally useful than that, if sometimes that makes them a little
vague or ambiguous, since natural languages tend to be more vague and
ambiguous rather than limiting words to precise meaning. I suspect
that when we use {wa'ben} as a time stamp, it tends to mean "some
vague unit of time that occurred about a year ago" and when it is
used as a noun, it will tend to refer to the year between then and now.
In English, when I say "Last year, I visited my sister," I don't
generally mean that I visited her for the whole year. In fact, it
might have been for an hour or for a couple weeks. The statement
isn't very clear about the duration of the visit. But if I say, "I
wish I had last year to live over again," I do tend to mean the
entire year because I'm using the term as a noun instead of as a time
stamp.
I strongly suspect that this is what Okrand meant with his definition
for {ben}. Witness the term for hundred-year-old wine. He's not
referring to wine that was made and drunk a century ago. He's talking
about wine that has been around for a hundred years. He's using {ben}
as a noun when he refers to hundred year old wine, though he's using
it as a time stamp with {bogh} to refer to the age of a person. He
doesn't mean that the person's mother was in labor for the entire
duration of the person's age.
Does anyone else think this makes sense? Do you see a difference
between {ben} as a time stamp vs. {ben} as a noun?
You put {-'e'} on nouns. You don't put them on time stamps. If you
put them on a word that could be interpreted as a time stamp, I don't
think it is a stretch to expect that word to be used as a noun,
rather than as a time stamp. That's the root of my interest in using
{-'e'} to bound time words that relate to "now", like {ben, leS,
Hu',} etc..
> Obviously, not being a native-speaker of English, I might be wrong
> in my interpretation of the English words "ago/from now".
> If this is the case I will welcome being put right.
>
> 'ISqu'
Doq