[tlhIngan Hol] to qaStaHvIS or not to qaStaHvIS

[mayqel qunenoS]

SuStel,

I've been re-thinking this whole matter, and I would like to write my
conclusions so far. Please read them, and tell me what you think..

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. And second, even without it,
there is no confusion for the reader/listener. Let alone the fact,
that its addition could convey the false meaning that "during the
entire 24 hours of the day we will be working". On the other hand
though, its addition or not could depend on what we want to say:

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".

if we are answering to the question:
"what do you do on monday ?" then we are just answering {DaSjaj
mavum}, because there is no need to specify that during monday/during
the entire monday we will be working.

maj..

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. 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 ?". And this possible confusion
of the reader/listener is the only tangible reason I can find which
makes the {qaStaHvIS} necessary.

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.

But when we use large time spans, however arbitrary their definition
may be, we need the {qaStaHvIS}, in order to convey that something
takes place over/during them. Let alone, that for reasons I can't
explain, it just "doesn't feel right" to have a big time-span e.g.
{wa'maH DIS}, without something specifying it:
{ben}/{nem}/{qaStaHvIS}.

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".

If my above conclusions are correct, then the only obvious problem is
defining what constitutes "a small period of time", and "a big period
of time". Currently the only definition I can think of, is:

single day, and times of it (morning, afternoon, night, etc) : small
periods of time
anything else (weeks, months, years, etc) : big periods of time

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" ?

I don't know whether we could have it as rule, but I feel that unless
we want to emphasize that during that entire small time period
something takes place, then there is no actual need for it.

Anyway, this is my understanding of the {qaStaHvIS} so far, looking
forward to your comments..

qunnoH jan puqloD

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 10:06 PM, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:
> On 12/27/2016 2:50 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
>>
>> ok, scratch that. even with the {wa'maH DIS} we would need the
>> {qaStaHvIS}.
>>
>> however, if I wrote {wa'maH DIS vorgh} then the {qaStaHvIS} would be
>> unnecessary, right ?
>
>
> Still need it.
>
>
> --
> SuStel
> http://trimboli.name
>
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org