[87623] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: qoSwIj
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Thu Jan 7 13:17:09 2010
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:14:34 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <20100107163657.817144z1ega586gw@letter.sics.se>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On 1/7/2010 10:36 AM, kff@sics.se wrote:
> Quotingkff@sics.se:
>
>> > pab qab vIlo'be'taH
>> >
>> > Now, that's just part of what I wanted to say. First, I'm not sure
>> > that 'using bad grammar' is best rendered ar {pab qab lo'taH}. Second,
>> > and more importantly, I can't figure out how to say "in the future".
>> > I've found {pIq} which seems to convey the meaning of future, but that
>> > is a noun and I can't find a way to convert it appropriately. I
>> > suppose {pIqDaq} is too facile...
>> >
> Ahh, found the answer to my problem a few emails down... a case of
> premature reply;-)
>
> So:
>
> pIq pab qab vIlo'be'taH.
>
> Remaining issue: is {pIq} a good way to say "future"? Or is it used in
> a more specific sense?
It has never been used that way, but it does make sense. Some have
objected, saying that you have to use it in conjunction with a time
period, but this has not actually been established.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
