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

[SuStel]

On 2/8/2019 9:47 AM, De'vID wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 15:30, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name 
> <mailto:sustel at trimboli.name>> wrote:
>
>     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.
>
>
> What about {wa' ben tugh [qaSpu' wanI']} "one year ago it will have 
> happened soon"? Or is the combination of {wa' ben} with {tugh} weird? 

I think it's weird. We've had the discussion of using these relative 
time expressions before, though I don't think we have an official 
answer. Can you make the *tugh* apply to a specified point in time 
instead of the current time? Dunno.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20190208/28793180/attachment-0016.htm>