[tlhIngan Hol] To indicate many millenia ago

[André Müller]

I agree, after thinking about what {ben} means, there's actually no reason
not to use it. It just seemed unusual to me.
However, there is a slight difference between {ben} and {benmey}. The
latter means "years ago" and could be anything between 2 and 13 billion.
{ben} itself can be interpreted as singular or (unmarked) plural, so it can
mean "a year ago" or "years ago". {benmey} cannot mean "a year ago".
But I wouldn't just use {ben} alone. If I'd see it in a text, I'd
interprete it as meaning "one or more years ago".

I wonder if {DIS ret} is possible as a kind of synonym of {ben}. I wouldn't
use it. But it might not be strictly wrong.

- André

2016-12-06 18:04 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name>:

> I can understand the hesitancy with using *ben law'.* As a time
> expression, *ben* by itself points to a time, albeit a vague one. But
> it's a noun that indicates a point in time. So what does it mean if you
> have more than one *ben*? What are *benmey*?
>
> Surely we already know the answer to that: *cha' ben* means *two years
> ago,* so *cha' benmey* also means *two years ago.* Multiple *benmey*
> means exactly the same thing as singular *ben*. So I see no grammatical
> reason why we can't speak of *ben law'*. *wa' ben, cha' ben, ben law'**
> one year ago, two years ago, many years ago.*
>
> As for the original question, I'm not sure I see any significant
> difference between *SaD law' ben* and *SaD ben law'.* I think I'd go for
> the former, since it makes more sense to me to speak of years ago counting
> in the many thousands, rather than having many thousand-years-agos.
>
> On 12/6/2016 11:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>
>
> Andre Muller:
> > I might also accept {ben law'} as many years
> > ago, although I'm not sure it works well.
>
> I remember voragh once writing: {ben law'qu'} has been used many times on
> this list to indicate "once upon a time".
>
> Now, as far as the three possible choices I wrote are concerned, I think
> that they are all valid with the meaning only slightly changing from one to
> the other:
>
> {SaD DIS ret law'} = many (thousands of years ago)
>
> {SaD DIS law' ret} = (many thousands of years) ago
>
> {SaD law' DIS ret} = (many thousands) of years ago
>
> If the above analysis is correct, then perhaps this all comes down to
> personal preference.
>
> qunnoH jan puqloD
> ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
>
> On 6 Dec 2016 6:32 pm, "André Müller" <esperantist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Don't forget that "years ago" is {ben}, so you can either say:
>> 1) {SaD DIS law' ret} = many millennia ago, or
>> 2) {SaD law' ben} = many thousand years ago.
>> And these essentially mean the same.
>>
>> I might also accept {ben law'} as many years ago, although I'm not sure
>> it works well.
>>
>> - André
>>
>> 2016-12-06 16:01 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> In order to indicate "many millenia ago", which is the correct choice ?
>>>
>>> {SaD DIS ret law'}, {SaD DIS law' ret} or {SaD law' DIS ret} ?
>>>
>>
>
> --
> SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161206/ec77f128/attachment-0016.htm>