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

[SuStel]

On 2/8/2019 8:07 AM, David Holt wrote:
> 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.

Here's another "no true Klingon" argument. Whether or not a Klingon 
would say it does not make it unsayable. And I don't happen to think 
that a Klingon wouldn't say it. The advice to be accurate is not advice 
to cite data to the umpteenth decimal point or to cite no data at all, 
and it is certainly not advice to give precise but wrong data; it is 
advice to always use as much precision as you possess. If all you know 
is that it was almost a year ago, but not exactly when, then it would be 
perfectly appropriate for you to say so. If you do happen to know 
exactly when it was, then cite that date.

As for the original question, I agree with those who say that the 
*tlhoS* in *tlhoS wa' ben qaSpu' wanI'* incorrectly tries to apply 
itself to the noun phrase *wa' ben.* I like mayqel's solution of *wa' 
ben HochHom qaSpu' wanI':* simple and accurate, though I feel a little 
uncomfortable about having "most of" a particular moment in time. I 
wonder if one could say *wa' HochHom*/almost one/ as in *wa' HochHom ben 
qaSpu' wanI'.* I wouldn't feel comfortable using that either, but it 
does seem to follow all the rules.

Imprecise time expressions are always a challenge.


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190208/27fa5176/attachment-0002.htm>