[83882] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Specifying distance traveled (was Art of War Chp. 2 (section 1/3))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Tue Jan 8 13:39:35 2008
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20080108095055.02931ba0@imap.uchicago.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:37:54 -0500
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
You'd use distance as "a type of time stamp"?
I admit that time and distance are related in many ways, but I'm not
sure that Klingon grammar is included on such a list of relationships.
It's an interesting concept, but not something we've had any hint of
from Okrand, that I've seen.
It seems much safer to use {-'e'} to mark the distance here, since it
is the most significant noun there for the meaning of the sentence,
and it's not the subject or direct object. That's pretty much what
{-'e'} usually marks.
If we are going to start using distance nouns in place of time nouns
for time stamps, I don't think we should begin the practice casually
with a quiet declaration, expecting no challenges. It should at least
follow either a discussion period, or better yet, a declaration from
Okrand, since without that, even a discussion is probably moot.
Doq
On Jan 8, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Steven Boozer wrote:
> Personally, I would omit {chuq} as it is redundant: "I travelled a
> thousand miles" = "I travelled a distance of a thousand miles".
> Then I
> would either place the distance at the front of the sentence as a
> type of
> time stamp:
>
> wa'SaD qelI'qam jIlengtaH
> I've been travelling (for) a thousand kellicams
>
> or tag it and set if off with {-'e'} as Doq suggests:
>
> wa'SaD qelI'qam'e' jIlengtaH
> a thousand kellicams I've been travelling
>
> I think the first method works better when a destination is used:
>
> wa'SaD qelI'qam veng wa'DIch vIleng.
> I travelled a thousand kellicams to the First City.
> For a thousand kellicams I travelled to the First City.
>
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
>
>
>
