tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 25 19:08:12 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)

McArdle ([email protected]) 

It's a darn shame that Okrand has foreclosed the use of {-vo'} in a temporal sense.  {wa'benvo' qatoy'taH} would capture this perfectly.
   
  mIq'ey
Doq <[email protected]> wrote:
  Enough arguing. Show me how you say, "I have served you for the past 
year." It is a simple sentence. You have shown me that you have the 
skill to shoot down my suggestion. Show me that you have skill enough 
to offer your own.

Every marksman should be bold enough to be willing to be a target.

Doq

On Feb 25, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Agnieszka Solska wrote:

> ja' Doq:
>
> :Has anyone noticed that we tend to use {qaStaHvIS wa'ben}
> :to mean "While last year happened",
>
> I certainly haven't noticed any such tendency. In fact,
> I don't think anyone has ever used {wa'ben} as the subject
> of a clause.
>
> :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,
>
> But {qaStaHvIS} *is* Okrandian canon:
>
>
> qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH
> qetbogh loD.
> "Four thousand throats may be cut in one night
> by a running man."
> [TKW: 127]
>
> qaStaHvIS wej puq poHmey vav puqloDpu'
> puqloDpu'chaj je quvHa'moH vav quvHa'ghach.
> "The dishonor of the father dishonors his
> sons and their sons for three generations."
> [TKW: 155]
>
> qaStaHvIS wa'maH puq poHmey, wo'rIv batleH ghaj
> qorDu'Daj.
> "Worf's bat'telh has been in his family for ten
> generations. "
> [SBX: 8]
>
> :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."?
>
> Sentence {qIbDaq SuvwI''e' SoH Dun law' Hoch Dun puS}
> literally means: "In the galaxy, as for warriors, you are
> the greatest." Somehow this example leads you to believe that
> {wa'ben'e'}, literally "as for a year ago", would "generally be
> interpreted" as "for the last year". I am skeptical if this is
> indeed the "general" understanding of this phrase but until
> other proficient speakers of Klingon present their opinions
> I have no way of knowing if my skepticism is justified.
>
> :Please point out why the use of {-'e'} is inferior to
> :the use of {qaStaHvIS},
>
> I never said the use of {-'e'} is inferior to the use of
> {qaStaHvIS}. These two grammatical devices simply perform
> different roles.
>
> :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}.
>
> In fact, he gave two definitions for {ben}:
>
> 1. "years ago" (TKD, p.80)
> 2. "years old" (KGT, p. 211)
>
> :Witness the term for hundred-year-old wine.
>
> The example is:
>
> {cha'vatlh ben HIq vItlhutlh.}
> I will drink two century old ale."
> [PK]
>
> :He's not referring to wine that was made and drunk a century ago.
>
> Well, it would be kind of silly to go to a bar and order wine that
> has already been drunk...
>
> :He's talking about wine that has been around for a hundred years.
>
> or the wine (ale) that has been around for two hundred years because
> it is two hundred "years old", i.e. was produced two hundred years 
> ago.
>
> :Does anyone else think this makes sense? Do you see a
> :difference between {ben} as a time stamp vs. {ben} as a noun?
>
> As I see it, the term "noun" describes the lexical category of a word.
> The term "time stamp" describes the word's position/function in
> a sentence. Obviously, the same noun can assume different
> positions and functions in different sentences.
>
> - {jajvetlh} used as subject:
>
> Dun jajvetlh.
> "That day was wonderful."
>
> - {jajvetlh} used as object:
>
> not jajvetlh vIlIj.
> "I will never forget/I never forgot that day."
>
> - {jajvetlh} used in a noun-noun construction:
>
> jajvetlh Qu' ta'be'lu'.
> "That day's mission was not accomplished."
>
> - {jajvetlh} used in a a time stamp:
>
> (wa' jaj 'etlh 'uchchoHlaH tlhIngan puqloD)
> jajvetlh loD nen moj. (TKW, 177)
> "(...) That day he becomes a man."
>
> :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..
>
> So far, you are the only person who has used {-'e'} on a timestamp 
> in order
> to make it function as something other than a timestamp. An 
> interesting
> experiment.
>
> 'ISqu'
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's 
> FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
>





 
---------------------------------
Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

Back to archive top level