[tlhIngan Hol] ordering and scope of adverbials relative to timestamps

David Holt kenjutsuka at live.com
Fri Feb 8 05:07:13 PST 2019

I agree with Lieven. The original question sounds like you're trying to be approximate. Embrace the inaccuracy! Is there some reason that it is important that it has not yet been a complete year? If so, then you are going to have to make that point separately.


Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>

From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces at lists.kli.org> on behalf of Lieven L. Litaer <levinius at gmx.de>
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 5:40:20 AM
To: tlhingan-hol at kli.org
Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] ordering and scope of adverbials relative to timestamps

Am 08.02.2019 um 10:48 schrieb De'vID:
> Do you consider the sentence order to be fixed (with time stamps always
> ahead of adverbials, for example),
Yes, that's my opinion too.

> wrong or just might affect the emphasis and not the meaning? Or would
> you interpret the scope to change?

I think the problem here is not the word order, but the question whether
{tlhoS} can modify the time stamp. I think it cannot. From my feeling,
the adverbial modifies the entire sentence, so the meaning would remain
"last year, something almost happened".

> How would you say "almost one year
> ago [something happened]"? {wa' ben tugh [qaSpu' wanI']}?

I would try to make it two sentences: one for the event, one for the
time that's not finished yet.

{wa' ben [something happens], 'ach wej qaS wanI' DISjaj.}

Lieven L. Litaer
aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany"
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190208/7bc38c09/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the tlhIngan-Hol mailing list