[tlhIngan Hol] to qaStaHvIS or not to qaStaHvIS

[Alan Anderson]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:51 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> ok, I understand the difference between a time span and a time stamp.
>

You have not yet demonstrated your understanding. The distinction is in the
word "span" -- it represents a measured period of time, with a beginning an
an end. In contrast, a "stamp" is like a finger pointing to a spot on a
calendar, or on a clock, indicating a specific time. It isn't necessarily
an instantaneous *moment*, but it doesn't count the passage of time.


> so, applying this distinction in the {qaStaHvIS} discussion, I understand
> that:
>
> "..when we are using time stamps, the {qaStaHvIS} may or may not be used,
> depending on the occasion. but when we are using time periods, then the
> {qaStaHvIS} is absolutely necessary.."
>
> would you agree with the above ?
>

I do not agree. As soon as you say {qaStaH}, you're making the phrase talk
about a duration. It's no longer acting as a time stamp.


> and something else. since {DIS vorgh} is a time stamp, would you agree
> with {Soch DIS vorgh jIQuch} for "the previous 7 years I was happy" ?
>

I do not agree. The English would usually be "during the previous 7 years".
If you are trying to say something else, it is not apparent. You seem to be
wanting to focus on a seven year span. That needs a verb to represent the
passing of time, and the usual one is {qaStaHvIS}.

-- ghunchu'wI'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161228/163d1f91/attachment-0016.htm>