tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 08 13:19:45 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: qoSwIj

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

On 1/8/2010 9:44 AM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> [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>)

Then you have an odd definition of "definite." Saying "it follows the 
noun specifying the length of time involved" doesn't have any bearing on 
how it works if there is no specific length of time involved.

-- 
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/

Back to archive top level