tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 08 20:50:43 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qoSwIj
- From: Steven Lytle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qoSwIj
- Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 23:48:27 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ZRJbDfZ2VN014lbncM/mLBiazjXSySwFwtlIpmKJsU0=; b=xtQEJ+LOHY0T+xwKU2J/NkYNrRQAookITE8qjyMDhu9J6BesDMM0KJGvFb/HaEEwsb puo6bfh3rw5plNb6Jn5lIJyBtgBMH8b4PrcqdJRy5MOQlLKTbcwqkhwTW6hyO5hfwfUD LdJKsvz8f4Dh8Byg3D8wOgUlMn52UW36untOQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Z2xmwUzTnfJnR5oFAYFJX5E7PQHQ0QfLqZMl7rB0vPiFNZaQBW5IMzRND41Wg+U79h y9Yi88oQ1hNUkEUACCeMCFna3PVasfKwfNCaCYqo5VpV9179ETzDu8w9O5MM2joB2CW2 MANONQGplxGB7J7V1SCUkAlPN2F93/WKhWz74=
- In-reply-to: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A60113A1A565FE@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A60113A1A565FE@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
Okrand says {pIq} "follows the noun specifying the length of time involved",
but that presupposes that there is a noun which specifies the length of time
involved; when there is such a noun, {pIq} follows it. It doesn't address
the issue of when there is no such noun.
lay'tel SIvten
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Steven Boozer <[email protected]> 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>)
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Canon Master of the Klingons
>
>
>
>
>