tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 08 09:05:26 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: qoSwIj
Quoting Steven Boozer <[email protected]>:
> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Second, and more importantly, I can't figure out how to say "in the
>>> future". I've found {pIq} which seems to convey the meaning of future,
>>> but that is a noun and I can't find a way to convert it appropriately.
>>> [...]
>>> pIq pab qab vIlo'be'taH.
>>>
>>> Remaining issue: is {pIq} a good way to say "future"? Or is it used in
>>> a more specific sense?
>
> SuStel:
>> It has never been used that way, but it does make sense. Some have
>> objected, saying that you have to use it in conjunction with a time
>> period, but this has not actually been established.
>
> Okrand writes (HolQeD 8.3:2-3) that:
>
> It [{pIq}] follows the noun specifying the length of time involved,
> as in {cha' tup pIq} "two minutes from now". [...] These words
> follow the more specific time units. For example, "two minutes ago"
> is {cha' tup ret}, literally "two minute time-period-ago." "Two
> minutes from now" is {cha' tup pIq}. (It is also possible, though
> not necessary, to use the plural suffixes with the time units if
> there is more than one of them: {cha' tupmey ret}, {cha' tupmey pIq}.)
>
> The words {ret} and {pIq} could also be used with days, months, and
> years (e.g., {wej jaj ret} "three days ago," rather than {wejHu'},
> but utterances of these are not particularly common, sound a bit
> archaic, and are usually restricted to rather formal settings.
>
>
> N.B. "It follows the noun specifying the length of time involved
> ... These words follow the more specific time units."
>
> Not "may follow", "usually follow", "often follow", etc. Sounds
> pretty definite to me.
>
> Presumably it works like {ben} "years ago, years old" and related
> time nouns which have never been used by Okrand without a number jut
> by themselves. A pity really. I (and others) have been known to
> write *{ben law'(qu')} when rendering "(very) many years ago", "in
> the (remote) past", "once upon a time", and the like.
>
> I admit, though, that he doesn't say that the time unit is *never*
> omitted. (Okrand always leaves himself a loophole! <g>)
Ok, so what about expressing "In the future, ..." as either of these
alternatives:
{Hoch pIq ...}
{poH Hoch pIq ...}
{Hoch poH pIq ...}
Perhaps the second alternative is most grammatical, with {poH Hoch}
taken to mean "all times". But perhaps {poH Hoch} is rather the
"totality of time" which, when used for my original purpose says that,
"when all time has passed I will not use bad grammar". Maybe all too
true, but not what I wanted to say. ;-)
So what about {poHmey Hoch pIq ...}? Does it mean "the totality of times..."
Of course, I could give up on saying "in the future" and go for {tugh
...} which yields {tugh pab qab vIlo'be'taH} ("soon I will not be
using bad grammar").
/buSwI'
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Canon Master of the Klingons
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.