[2748] in tlhIngan-Hol
po puv bortaS! (translation)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon Jan 24 17:27:57 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 16:04:36 -0500
In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Mon, 24 Jan 94 14:48:30 EST <9401241949.A
A25855@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>
>From: Will Martin <whm2m@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
>Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 14:48:30 EST
>On Jan 24, 1:57pm, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> Subject: po puv bortaS! (translation)
>[Okay, this thread has too many layers to include the usual delimited
>quotations. ~mark addresses my point about using bare time-nouns, like {po}
>or {DaHjaj}, adverbially vs. the {qasDI' po} construction.]
>Thank you, ~mark. I think I'm achieving a new clarity on this point. As
>I see it, what we are talking about is the difference between a time stamp
>(like {DaH, DaHjaj, po, wa'leS}, etc.), where it is ALWAYS better to just use
>the bare noun, and a DURATION reference, where it is ALWAYS better to use the
>{qaStaHvIS X} construction (where X represents a time duration, like {loS
>jaj}).
So far, I think we're getting closer to a consensus. We certainly agree
that "-Daq" is right out.
>In English, we are talking about the difference between, "It rained four
>days ago," and "It rained for four days." The latter case needs {qaStaHvIS}.
>The former case does not. I don't mean that the former case does not REQUIRE
>{qaStaHvIS}. I mean that the latter does not ALLOW {qaStaHvIS}.
Hmmm.... maybe. While I would greatly prefer {loSHu' SIS} (that OK use of
impersonal "it"? This is another good question), I still think that
{qaStaHvIS loSHu' SIS} is OK, if bad style and icky. To me, nouns of time
like {ben} and {Hu'} and {leS} are just that: nouns. They can be used
adjectivally, true, but {Hu'} means "some day/time, several days in the
past", just like "wa'Hu'" means "the day that preceded this one" as well as
the adverbial phrase "sometime in the day that preceded this one..." This
was how I interpreted {cha'vatlhben HIq} in PK: it's a noun-noun
construction, meaning liquor of cha'vatlhben, the last word being a noun
meaning "some year/time two hundred years ago" (nouns of time have the
convention that they can be preceded by numerals; this is well-attested).
So it's "ale that is associated with a time two-hundred years ago". This
certainly could be a way of describing two-century-old ale (though
admittedly it could also refer to ale whose recipe was invented then or
whatever, but that kind of polysemy is very common in many languages, and
certainly in Klingon). So {qaStaHvIS loSHu' SIS} would mean "while the day
before this one was happening, it rained". It's yucky, but still correct,
even as "During yesterday it rained" is correct in English, tho crummy
style.
>Examples of the difference:
> [I sleep at night.] = {ram jIQong}.
> [I sleep all night.] = {qaStaHvIS ram jIQong}
>Does this sound accurate? Am I grokking this? Where is my error, if
>there is one?
I don't fully agree here. "qaStaHvIS ram jIQong" nowhere implies that it
takes you all night to sleep, any more than the TKD phrase about cutting
throats means that you have to be a-slitting all night to get through all
four thou. "qaStaHvIS X" is like "during X". It means that something
happened while something else was going on, not that something happened
during the whole time something else was going on. Compare TKD 6.2.2:
SutlhtaHvIS chaH DIHIvpu'. While they were negotiating we attacked them.
That doesn't mean we were attacking them the whole time they were
negotiating, just that while they were negotiating, at some point, we
attacked them. See? "qaStaHvIS ram jIQong" would mean "I sleep during the
night". Not necessarily all of it, but during it.
>Hmmmm. Or how about:
> [I sleep as soon as night falls] = {qaSDI' ram jIQong}
>The significant thing here is that the time stamp is focussed on the
>beginning edge of the time duration known as "night".
Hmmm.... I think you're right here.
~mark
