[87631] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: qoSwIj
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Lytle)
Fri Jan 8 23:51:21 2010
In-Reply-To: <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A60113A1A565FE@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 23:48:27 -0500
From: Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Okrand says {pIq} "follows the noun specifying the length of time involved",
but that presupposes that there is a noun which specifies the length of time
involved; when there is such a noun, {pIq} follows it. It doesn't address
the issue of when there is no such noun.
lay'tel SIvten
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> kff@sics.se wrote:
> >> 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.
> >> [...]
> >> 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?
>
> SuStel:
> >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.
>
> Okrand writes (HolQeD 8.3:2-3) that:
>
> It [{pIq}] follows the noun specifying the length of time involved,
> as in {cha' tup pIq} "two minutes from now". [...] These words
> follow the more specific time units. For example, "two minutes ago"
> is {cha' tup ret}, literally "two minute time-period-ago." "Two
> minutes from now" is {cha' tup pIq}. (It is also possible, though
> not necessary, to use the plural suffixes with the time units if
> there is more than one of them: {cha' tupmey ret}, {cha' tupmey pIq}.)
>
> The words {ret} and {pIq} could also be used with days, months, and
> years (e.g., {wej jaj ret} "three days ago," rather than {wejHu'},
> but utterances of these are not particularly common, sound a bit
> archaic, and are usually restricted to rather formal settings.
>
>
> N.B. "It follows the noun specifying the length of time involved ... These
> words follow the more specific time units."
>
> Not "may follow", "usually follow", "often follow", etc. Sounds pretty
> definite to me.
>
> Presumably it works like {ben} "years ago, years old" and related time
> nouns which have never been used by Okrand without a number jut by
> themselves. A pity really. I (and others) have been known to write *{ben
> law'(qu')} when rendering "(very) many years ago", "in the (remote) past",
> "once upon a time", and the like.
>
> I admit, though, that he doesn't say that the time unit is *never* omitted.
> (Okrand always leaves himself a loophole! <g>)
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Canon Master of the Klingons
>
>
>
>
>
