[tlhIngan Hol] Vanitas Vanitatum et Omnia Vanitas

[mayqel qunenoS]

ghunchu'wI':
> {ret} alone, without being preceded by an actual specifier of a time
> period, is very odd.

I know. Because of that reason in the original sentence I wrote {'op ret}.

ghunchu'wI':
> You could add {DIS}, or you could replace it
> with {ben}, to be "some years ago"

The way I understand words similar to {ret}, they need to be preceeded
or followed by something expressing a number (either a number or
law'/puS/'Iq etc). So, how can we write {DIS ret} ? Or even worst use
{ben} on its own ?

ghunchu'wI':
> In any case, the word {Hoch} ought to go either before or in place of
> the noun it is referring to.

Because of this reason, I placed it before the {wa'} which was used as
noun. I chose this because of the canon example "kill one of them I
don't care who". (I don't remember it exactly at the moment)

qunnoH


On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy at alcaco.net> wrote:
>>> jIQub: 'op ret yIn nuvpu'vam Hoch wa'.
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:13 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The intented meaning was "I was thinking: some time ago, each one of
>> these people was living (alive)".
>
> {ret} alone, without being preceded by an actual specifier of a time
> period, is very odd. Translate it as just "ago" to see whether what
> you wrote makes sense. You could add {DIS}, or you could replace it
> with {ben}, to be "some years ago". You could use {pa'logh} "the past"
> if you want to be really general. You could just say {yInpu'} "had
> lived".
>
> Do you really mean "each *one* of them", or is "each person" or "each
> of them" sufficient? Or might you be okay with saying "all (of them)"?
> In any case, the word {Hoch} ought to go either before or in place of
> the noun it is referring to. If you actually want to say that each
> individual person lived in turn, implying a focus on them one at a
> time, {ngIq} might work instead, but I don't think that's what you
> mean. The number {wa'} in Klingon usually isn't appropriate for the
> kind of nonspecific "one" that you're trying to say. Try to avoid
> stretching it beyond counting or labeling things.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org