tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 24 21:56:31 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Topic (was: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007)
- From: "DloraH" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Topic (was: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007)
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:54:53 -0600
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- Thread-index: AcdYVSdom1z4JQOtQKO5bmbDZurXtwASYD4g
> 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