tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 14 11:52:22 2010

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jISIv

Krenath ([email protected]) 

Okay, given those definitions, I've always understood the concept if a time*stamp* to be a fixed, absolute point in time as opposed to a relative point or an interval.

As a developer, a timestamp is whatever date/time it was when something happened, recorded a an absolute time and date.  Such as "2010/09/14 14:50:00.000"

I'm still not getting the concept of a relative timestamp. That sounds like an oxymoron. 

On Sep 14, 2010, at 2:38 PM, MorphemeAddict <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Krenath <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What do you mean by 'timestamp'?
>> 
>> The last thing I think of when I think of a 'timestamp' is anything
>> relative.
>> 
>> A timestamp is absolute. (Midnight, 4pm, January 3rd 478AD)
>> 
> 
> These are points in time. (Well, January 3rd, 478 AD, is a time interval of
> one day, but it can be treated as a point.) Points in time can be absolute,
> as above, or relative (deictic), e.g., 5 minutes ago.
> 
>> 
>> A timespan is relative. (yesterday, 5 minutes ago, next week)
>> 
> 
> 5 minutes ago is a relative point in time, not an interval (timespan).
> Intervals can also be absolute (the 20th century) or relative (the last
> century, [which is ambiguous. Does it mean the hundred years immediately
> preceding now, e.g., 1910-2010, or does it mean the the previous interval of
> one hundred years that started on an even hundred, i.e, that lasted from
> 1900 to 2000?].)
> 
> It seems that timestamps can be either absolute or relative, and either a
> point or an interval.
> 
> lay'tel SIvten
> 
> 
>> 
>> Of course, I'm more a software developer than a linguist...
>> 
>> On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:01 AM, "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think of time stamps as either being absolute (like midnight) or
>> relative TO NOW (like tomorrow). I don't think that a time stamp is the
>> right grammatical structure to talk about the length of a span of time
>> between two events, neither of which is now.
>>> 
>>> My suggestion {qaSpu'mo' tup 'ar jIpaS?} translates to "I will be late
>> because how many minutes have happened?" Is it really that obtuse? You seem
>> fixated on using a time stamp here. You really can talk about time without
>> always having to use it as a time stamp.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>> On Sep 14, 2010, at 1:51 AM, R Fenwick <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> ghItlhpu' lojmIt tI'wI' nuv:
>>>>> Today, I thought I might be late. I said to myself, "How late will I
>> be?"
>>>>> I considered how I would say that in Klingon.
>>>> 
>>>> jIjatlh jIH:
>>>> 
>>>> chaq jIpaS. tup/rep/jaj 'ar pIq jIpaw?
>>>> I may be late. How many minutes/hours/days in the future will I arrive?
>>>> 
>>>> taH:
>>>>> I rejected {'ar jIpaS} because, though an English speaker would
>> understand
>>>>> it, grammatically, I've only seen {'ar} used adjectivally, not
>> adverbially.
>>>>> It might make sense as {tup 'ar jIpaS}, though that is, itself, an odd
>>>>> grammatical construction, as would be {tup 'ar vIpaS}.
>>>> 
>>>> Not if {tup 'ar} is acting as a time stamp, though {tup 'ar jIpaS} would
>> be
>>>> more like "For how many minutes will I be late?", which doesn't work for
>> me.
>>>> It implies that you will stop being late after a certain number of
>> minutes,
>>>> which simply can't happen: even after you arrive ten minutes late, you
>> are
>>>> still late.
>>>> 
>>>>> One has no grammatical connection between {tup} and the verb.
>>>> 
>>>> There's never an overt grammatical connection between a time stamp noun
>> and
>>>> the main verb of the clause it modifies.
>>>> 
>>>>> I could even stretch it to {qaSpu'mo' tup 'ar jIpaS?} It's a little
>> awkward,
>>>>> but it carries the meaning clearly enough.
>>>> 
>>>> Not really; taking the sentence on its face, I can't get to "How late
>> will I
>>>> be?" from it. "Because it has happened, how many minutes will I be late
>> for?"
>>>> I can't wrap my head around it.
>>>> 
>>>>> So, I thought the best way might be simply to say, {tugh jIpaSqu' 'e'
>> vISIv}.
>>>> 
>>>> pabbej. "I wonder if I will soon be very late." Is there a need to
>> specify by
>>>> how much time you were going to be late?
>>>> 
>>>> QeS 'utlh
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>

Back to archive top level