tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 24 21:56:31 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

RE: Topic (was: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007)

DloraH ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']



> Has anyone noticed that we tend to use {qaStaHvIS wa'ben} to mean

"We"?  I don't recall ever seeing wa'ben used with qaStaHvIS.


> 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, 

Huh?  qaStaHvIS is canon.


> ... so that {wa'ben'e' qatoy'taH} would generally be  
> interpreted as "I have served you for the past year."?

This states when it happened; not how long it happened for.


> >    {qaStaHvIS wa' DIS qatoy'taH}
> 
> 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.

Correct.  If you need to specify WHEN it happened, then add a timestamp that states when it
happened.


> > To be really emphatic I might add an otherwise
> > redundant (poH):
> >
> >    qatoy'taH qaStaHvIS wa' DIS poH.
> 
> Eeeew.

It works for me.  But like she said, the /poH/ is an emphatic redundant.


DloraH






Back to archive top level