[108641] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] to qaStaHvIS or not to qaStaHvIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Wed Dec 28 08:00:08 2016
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 07:59:40 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAP7F2cKUc1frpEiadsYKU0fL_Gj_0-wby-LcKVVzCLLXaKmDjw@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============0791058003638922213==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------0B01041D1DFE332265824977"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------0B01041D1DFE332265824977
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 12/28/2016 6:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> When we say {DaSjaj mavum}, the {qaStaHvIS} is unnecessary. Why ? For
> two reasons: First, because there is no direct need to specify that
> during the entire day we will be working.
*qaStaHvIS DaSjaj* *mavum* doesn't say you're working for an entire
Monday. It says we work during Monday. We might work for one minute or
one hour or eight hours or twenty-four hours.
> if we are answering to the question:
> "on monday do you want to grab a coffee?" then we can answer {ghobe',
> qaStaHvIS DaSjaj mavum}. It is not that the {ghobe', DaSjaj mavum} is
> wrong; it is only that it doesn't carry the punch of saying "no,
> during monday we work".
*DaSjaj mavum* would be used to point to a calendar to show why we can't
go for coffee that day. *qaStaHvIS DaSjaj mavum* would be used to set
the context that Monday is ongoing, and then work happened.
> But when we say {qaStaHvIS wa'maH DIS maSuv} for "during ten years we
> are fighting", the {qaStaHvIS} is necessary because we obviously want
> to convey, that the event of "our fighting" takes place over the
> period of a large time span.
No, the *qaStaHvIS* is necessary because *wa'maH DIS* is not a time stamp.
> Since we want to convey the "during"
> aspect, then obviously the {qaStaHvIS} is necessary. If we didn't use
> it, then perhaps the reader/listener could be left to wonder: "did
> they fight during the entire time-span ?".
Without it the reader/listener would be left wondering what that *wa'maH
DIS* was doing in the sentence. Is it an object? What's its grammatical
role? *wa'maH DIS* does not mean /for ten years;/ that /for/ is the
*qaStaHvIS.* w*a'maH DIS* means only /ten years./
> Now, perhaps there is an additional reason.. if we just wrote: {wa'maH
> DIS maSuv}, then the feeling that I get from this sentence is that we
> have a {wa'maH DIS} which is very "independent/out of the
> blue/undetermined/undescribed". And perhaps, here is the problem with
> big periods of time requiring the {qaStaHvIS}; one can understand if
> we just say {po'}, {DaSjaj}. {DaSjaj, povjaj je}. These are small time
> spans.
Your feeling is correct but it's not because of the size of the time
span. It's because a time span is not a time stamp.
> And then we have the canon example of voragh:
> {qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD}
> 4,000 throats may be cut in one night by a running man
>
> Here the {qaStaHvIS} is essential in order to differentiate between an
> event happening "during a night", and an event happening "one night".
Which works because *wa' jaj* /one day/ works in the same way as it does
in English: as a time stamp. We see this in the proverb *wa' jaj 'etlh
'uchchoHlaH tlhIngan puqloD; jajvetlh loD nen moj.* This is a time
stamp. Don't think of *wa' jaj* as a time period, like *cha' jaj* or
*wej jaj,* think of it as "one of those days I can point to on the
calendar," or "this day, not that day."
> However, a final question comes to mind: "could we have it as rule,
> that when something happens during a small period of time then the
> {qaStaHvIS} is always unnecessary" ?
No.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------0B01041D1DFE332265824977
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/28/2016 6:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cKUc1frpEiadsYKU0fL_Gj_0-wby-LcKVVzCLLXaKmDjw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">When we say {DaSjaj mavum}, the {qaStaHvIS} is unnecessary. Why ? For
two reasons: First, because there is no direct need to specify that
during the entire day we will be working.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><b>qaStaHvIS DaSjaj</b> <b>mavum</b> doesn't say you're working
for an entire Monday. It says we work during Monday. We might work
for one minute or one hour or eight hours or twenty-four hours.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cKUc1frpEiadsYKU0fL_Gj_0-wby-LcKVVzCLLXaKmDjw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">if we are answering to the question:
"on monday do you want to grab a coffee?" then we can answer {ghobe',
qaStaHvIS DaSjaj mavum}. It is not that the {ghobe', DaSjaj mavum} is
wrong; it is only that it doesn't carry the punch of saying "no,
during monday we work".</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p><b>DaSjaj mavum</b> would be used to point to a calendar to show
why we can't go for coffee that day. <b>qaStaHvIS DaSjaj mavum</b>
would be used to set the context that Monday is ongoing, and then
work happened.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cKUc1frpEiadsYKU0fL_Gj_0-wby-LcKVVzCLLXaKmDjw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">But when we say {qaStaHvIS wa'maH DIS maSuv} for "during ten years we
are fighting", the {qaStaHvIS} is necessary because we obviously want
to convey, that the event of "our fighting" takes place over the
period of a large time span.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, the <b>qaStaHvIS</b> is necessary because <b>wa'maH DIS</b> is
not a time stamp.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cKUc1frpEiadsYKU0fL_Gj_0-wby-LcKVVzCLLXaKmDjw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Since we want to convey the "during"
aspect, then obviously the {qaStaHvIS} is necessary. If we didn't use
it, then perhaps the reader/listener could be left to wonder: "did
they fight during the entire time-span ?".</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Without it the reader/listener would be left wondering what that
<b>wa'maH DIS</b> was doing in the sentence. Is it an object?
What's its grammatical role? <b>wa'maH DIS</b> does not mean <i>for
ten years;</i> that <i>for</i> is the <b>qaStaHvIS.</b> w<b>a'maH
DIS</b> means only <i>ten years.</i><br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cKUc1frpEiadsYKU0fL_Gj_0-wby-LcKVVzCLLXaKmDjw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Now, perhaps there is an additional reason.. if we just wrote: {wa'maH
DIS maSuv}, then the feeling that I get from this sentence is that we
have a {wa'maH DIS} which is very "independent/out of the
blue/undetermined/undescribed". And perhaps, here is the problem with
big periods of time requiring the {qaStaHvIS}; one can understand if
we just say {po'}, {DaSjaj}. {DaSjaj, povjaj je}. These are small time
spans.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Your feeling is correct but it's not because of the size of the
time span. It's because a time span is not a time stamp.<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cKUc1frpEiadsYKU0fL_Gj_0-wby-LcKVVzCLLXaKmDjw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And then we have the canon example of voragh:
{qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD}
4,000 throats may be cut in one night by a running man
Here the {qaStaHvIS} is essential in order to differentiate between an
event happening "during a night", and an event happening "one night".</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Which works because <b>wa' jaj</b> <i>one day</i> works in the
same way as it does in English: as a time stamp. We see this in
the proverb <b>wa' jaj 'etlh 'uchchoHlaH tlhIngan puqloD;
jajvetlh loD nen moj.</b> This is a time stamp. Don't think of <b>wa'
jaj</b> as a time period, like <b>cha' jaj</b> or <b>wej jaj,</b>
think of it as "one of those days I can point to on the calendar,"
or "this day, not that day."<br>
</p>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP7F2cKUc1frpEiadsYKU0fL_Gj_0-wby-LcKVVzCLLXaKmDjw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">However, a final question comes to mind: "could we have it as rule,
that when something happens during a small period of time then the
{qaStaHvIS} is always unnecessary" ?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
No.
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------0B01041D1DFE332265824977--
--===============0791058003638922213==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============0791058003638922213==--
