[tlhIngan Hol] Vanitas Vanitatum et Omnia Vanitas

[Alan Anderson]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:06 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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}.

Do you understand the sentence you quoted? Do you know what "time period" means?

{'op} just means "some, an unspecified amount". It isn't a time period
like {rep} or {Hogh}. {'op ret} "some ago" is not a complete idea.

> 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).

You have misunderstood. {ret} and {pIq} need to be preceded by
something representing a *period of time*.

> So, how can we write {DIS ret} ? Or even worst use
> {ben} on its own ?

You use them the way you thought a bare {ret} works. Quantify them
with a count before them, or with a numberlike verb after them.

> 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)

{wa' yIHoH} "Kill one (of them)." It's an example of using a number as
a noun, and it counts an amount of something which is already part of
the discussion. What you're trying to do is very different. You aren't
counting "one" of anything. Again, {wa'} doesn't work as a translation
of the indefinite pronoun "one". The simplest fix for this phrase is
just to say {nuv} where you tried to put {wa'}.

-- ghunchu'wI'