tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 08 09:31:14 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: qoSwIj
buSwI':
>>>> 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.
Voragh:
>> 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>)
buSwI':
>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..."
If you insist on using a non-numeric complement with {pIq} - although I don't recommend it - there's a better one available: {'op} "some, an unknown or unspecified quantity" (n.) which precedes the noun it modifies according to our one example:
'ej DujvamDaq 'op SuvwI' tu'lu'bogh po' law' tlhIngan yo' SuvwI' law' po' puS
It [IKC Pagh] has ... some of the finest warriors in the Klingon fleet. (S7)
So perhaps you could say:
? 'op pIq pab qab vIlo'be'
Some (unknown) time from now, I won't use bad grammar
>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").
I think everyone will agree that {tugh} works here and, in fact, this is how I would do it.
--
Voragh
Canon Master of the Klingons