[108655] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] to qaStaHvIS or not to qaStaHvIS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Wed Dec 28 15:17:31 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 15:16:58 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAFK8js17vw-M7o+mrt7MGgscgstw_+QV-9tVTKnD9B=3Zz_GoQ@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.
--===============5161128540626916635==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------11599CA7AD5494F1C574C6E1"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------11599CA7AD5494F1C574C6E1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 12/28/2016 2:39 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
>
> As SuStel said, {Soch DIS vorgh} is a time stamp. As was said
> earlier in this thread, time stamps don't require the {qaStaHvIS}.
> So, in the {Soch DIS vorgh jIQuch}, where is the problem ?
>
>
> I haven't seen a message where he said that {Soch DIS vorgh} is a time
> stamp. On the contrary, I have seen him pointing out that counting
> days or years makes them *not* a time stamp.
I said *DIS vorgh *is a time stamp. You're not counting it; you're
labeling it. *cha' DIS vorgh* would be counting years. *DISvam jatlhchoH
puq. DIS vorgh yItchoH puq. cha' ben boghpu' puq.* I don't feel
comfortable saying **cha' DIS vorgh boghpu' puq* because it sounds like
"the previous two years" rather than "two years previously"; it sounds
like I'm counting years instead of choosing a moment in time. If there
were such a thing as a **cha'DIS*/biyear, /then it might make sense, but
there is no such thing. If there were such a thing as a
**SochDIS*/seven-year,/ then I would accept **SochDIS vorgh* as
referring to the /previous seven-year,/ but there is no such thing as a
seven-year. If you said *Soch DIS vorgh poH jIQuch* I would accept it,
because here you're LABELING your time span as the /period of time of
the previous seven years./ It would parallel *vatlh DIS poH vorgh
jIboghpu'*/I was born in the previous century./ It's telling me WHEN
something happened, not HOW LONG something took.
Many time stamps can be time spans as well, BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME (no
pun intended). *DISvam* /this year/ can LABEL a year in which something
happens, OR it can simply be acted on as a thing in and of itself, as a
time span. This is where you're getting confused: determining which time
spans can act as time stamps. A time stamp tells me WHEN something
happens; a time span does not all by itself.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------11599CA7AD5494F1C574C6E1
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 2:39 PM, Alan Anderson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFK8js17vw-M7o+mrt7MGgscgstw_+QV-9tVTKnD9B=3Zz_GoQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">As SuStel said, {Soch DIS vorgh} is a time
stamp. As was said earlier in this thread, time stamps don't
require the {qaStaHvIS}. So, in the {Soch DIS vorgh jIQuch},
where is the problem ?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I haven't seen a message where he said that {Soch DIS vorgh}
is a time stamp. On the contrary, I have seen him pointing out
that counting days or years makes them *not* a time stamp.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I said <b>DIS vorgh </b>is a time stamp. You're not counting
it; you're labeling it. <b>cha' DIS vorgh</b> would be counting
years. <b>DISvam jatlhchoH puq. DIS vorgh yItchoH puq. cha' ben
boghpu' puq.</b> I don't feel comfortable saying <b>*cha' DIS
vorgh boghpu' puq</b> because it sounds like "the previous two
years" rather than "two years previously"; it sounds like I'm
counting years instead of choosing a moment in time. If there were
such a thing as a <b>*cha'DIS</b><i> biyear, </i>then it might
make sense, but there is no such thing. If there were such a thing
as a <b>*SochDIS</b><i> seven-year,</i> then I would accept <b>*SochDIS
vorgh</b> as referring to the <i>previous seven-year,</i> but
there is no such thing as a seven-year. If you said <b>Soch DIS
vorgh poH jIQuch</b> I would accept it, because here you're
LABELING your time span as the <i>period of time of the previous
seven years.</i> It would parallel <b>vatlh DIS poH vorgh
jIboghpu'</b><i> I was born in the previous century.</i> It's
telling me WHEN something happened, not HOW LONG something took.<br>
</p>
<p>Many time stamps can be time spans as well, BUT NOT AT THE SAME
TIME (no pun intended). <b>DISvam</b> <i>this year</i> can LABEL
a year in which something happens, OR it can simply be acted on as
a thing in and of itself, as a time span. This is where you're
getting confused: determining which time spans can act as time
stamps. A time stamp tells me WHEN something happens; a time span
does not all by itself.</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------11599CA7AD5494F1C574C6E1--
--===============5161128540626916635==
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
--===============5161128540626916635==--
