[tlhIngan Hol] to qaStaHvIS or not to qaStaHvIS

[mayqel qunenoS]

ghunchu'wI':
> You have not yet demonstrated your
> understanding.

I wrote earlier my understanding of time span and time stamp, through the
dialogue which took place between me and SuStel. did you expect me to write
specific examples or something ?

As far as the {Soch DIS vorgh jIQuch}, is concerned, I still can't
understand where is the problem.

As SuStel said, {Soch DIS vorgh} is a time stamp. As was said earlier in
this thread, time stamps don't require the {qaStaHvIS}. So, in the {Soch
DIS vorgh jIQuch}, where is the problem ?

You can say that for you "it doesn't convey the desired
meaning/feeling/whatever". But is it ungrammatical ?

If the sentence utilized a time span instead i.e. {Soch DIS jIQuch}, then
for the reasons SuStel explained, it would be ungrammatical. But since it
uses a time stamp, then where is the problem ?

Can you explain with reasonable arguments why I can say {DaSjaj jIQuch},
while at the same time you are telling me that I cannot say {Soch DIS vorgh
jIQuch} ?

Or is the {qaStaHvIS} another glorious "maltz said so" ? because if it is,
then hey I'm all for it ! just tell me though, and save me the grief of
trying to understand obviously contradictory explanations.

qunnoH jan puqloD
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
SuvwI'pu'qoq Hol tughojmoHta'mo' Satlho'

On 28 Dec 2016 6:57 pm, "Alan Anderson" <qunchuy at alcaco.net> wrote:

> 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'
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161228/cdc50659/attachment-0016.htm>