[tlhIngan Hol] to qaStaHvIS or not to qaStaHvIS

[SuStel]

On 12/28/2016 6:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
> When we say {DaSjaj mavum}, the {qaStaHvIS} is unnecessary. Why ? For
> two reasons: First, because there is no direct need to specify that
> during the entire day we will be working.

*qaStaHvIS DaSjaj* *mavum* doesn't say you're working for an entire 
Monday. It says we work during Monday. We might work for one minute or 
one hour or eight hours or twenty-four hours.


> if we are answering to the question:
> "on monday do you want to grab a coffee?" then we can answer {ghobe',
> qaStaHvIS DaSjaj mavum}. It is not that the {ghobe', DaSjaj mavum} is
> wrong; it is only that it doesn't carry the punch of saying "no,
> during monday we work".

*DaSjaj mavum* would be used to point to a calendar to show why we can't 
go for coffee that day. *qaStaHvIS DaSjaj mavum* would be used to set 
the context that Monday is ongoing, and then work happened.


> But when we say {qaStaHvIS wa'maH DIS maSuv} for "during ten years we
> are fighting", the {qaStaHvIS} is necessary because we obviously want
> to convey, that the event of "our fighting" takes place over the
> period of a large time span.

No, the *qaStaHvIS* is necessary because *wa'maH DIS* is not a time stamp.

> Since we want to convey the "during"
> aspect, then obviously the {qaStaHvIS} is necessary. If we didn't use
> it, then perhaps the reader/listener could be left to wonder: "did
> they fight during the entire time-span ?".

Without it the reader/listener would be left wondering what that *wa'maH 
DIS* was doing in the sentence. Is it an object? What's its grammatical 
role? *wa'maH DIS* does not mean /for ten years;/ that /for/ is the 
*qaStaHvIS.* w*a'maH DIS* means only /ten years./


> Now, perhaps there is an additional reason.. if we just wrote: {wa'maH
> DIS maSuv}, then the feeling that I get from this sentence is that we
> have a {wa'maH DIS} which is very "independent/out of the
> blue/undetermined/undescribed". And perhaps, here is the problem with
> big periods of time requiring the {qaStaHvIS}; one can understand if
> we just say {po'}, {DaSjaj}. {DaSjaj, povjaj je}. These are small time
> spans.

Your feeling is correct but it's not because of the size of the time 
span. It's because a time span is not a time stamp.


> And then we have the canon example of voragh:
> {qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD}
> 4,000 throats may be cut in one night by a running man
>
> Here the {qaStaHvIS} is essential in order to differentiate between an
> event happening "during a night", and an event happening "one night".

Which works because *wa' jaj* /one day/ works in the same way as it does 
in English: as a time stamp. We see this in the proverb *wa' jaj 'etlh 
'uchchoHlaH tlhIngan puqloD; jajvetlh loD nen moj.* This is a time 
stamp. Don't think of *wa' jaj* as a time period, like *cha' jaj* or 
*wej jaj,* think of it as "one of those days I can point to on the 
calendar," or "this day, not that day."


> However, a final question comes to mind: "could we have it as rule,
> that when something happens during a small period of time then the
> {qaStaHvIS} is always unnecessary" ?

No.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161228/8ce2a5b2/attachment-0002.htm>