[tlhIngan Hol] To indicate many millenia ago

[SuStel]

I see no problem at all with *DIS ret.*

Yes, if *ben* were used alone, it would mean /one or more years ago. /I 
think that's what people mean when they use it that way; they intend to 
be vague.


On 12/6/2016 12:25 PM, André Müller wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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
>>         <mailto: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} ?
>>


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20161206/5e603231/attachment-0017.htm>