[Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: van bom

[lojmIttI'wI'nuv]

I don’t have the source materials with me, but what I show for {ret} and {pIq} both cite HolQeD volume 8, number 3, page 3 with the note “follows time unit” and “follows time specification” respectively. It may not simply be the way you feel, but actually the way it works.

pItlh
lojmIt tI'wI'nuv



> On Mar 24, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Robyn Stewart <robyn at flyingstart.ca> wrote:
> 
> For me the lack of any time noun makes the naked words weird.  I read {ret
> qaSbe'. pIq qaS} as "ago it didn't happen. from now it will happen."  I'd be
> fine with {jajmey ret} or {Hoghmey pIq}. It's not the lack of a number, but
> the lack of a time period that I find hard to read. What's funny to me  is
> that {bIngwIj} now sounds ridiculous: just proof that we learn what to feel.
> Or that those Saqrejnganpu' are complete dolts. 
> 
> - Qov 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: SuStel [mailto:sustel at trimboli.name]
>> Sent: March 24, 2016 9:48
>> To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>> Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: van bom
>> 
>> On 3/24/2016 12:28 PM, Robyn Stewart wrote:
>>> Not that it's canon, but {ben law' ...} is a pretty common story
>>> opener, and in close to cha'maH qep'a'mey I don't recall anyone
>>> objecting. I'm more comfortable with {ben qaS} than with the
>>> increasingly common (maybe only increasingly since the words were
>>> revealed) unadorned  pIq and ret as timestamps for people who just
>>> can't bear not conveying the tense of the verb.
>> 
>> To be fair, there are times when you legitimately want to say something
>> happened "in the past" or "in the future" without saying-or knowing-
>> exactly when it happened. Sometimes all you know is that a thing happened
>> "years ago" or will happen an unknown number of "days from now."
>> 
>> I don't think unnumbered time-stamp nouns are something to be
>> discouraged. No one ever discouraged {bIngwIj} until we learned to say
> {jIH
>> bIng} from KGT, despite the fact that Okrand never wrote {bIngwIj}.
>> There comes a time when you have to use the tools you've been given to say
>> things Okrand never said. I think underspecified time stamps are an
> example
>> of this.
>> 
>> If, at some point, Okrand says no, you can't do it, then we stop doing it,
> and
>> our previous uses of underspecified time stamps become wrong, just as all
>> our constructions like {bIngwIj} are now wrong. Oh well!
>> 
>> --
>> SuStel
>> http://www.trimboli.name/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
>> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tlhingan-hol mailing list
> Tlhingan-hol at kli.org
> http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20160324/cd4f23a9/attachment.html>