[tlhIngan Hol] Time elements and *qaStaHvIS*, continuous and perfective aspect

[SuStel]

On 2/20/2022 9:07 AM, Will Martin wrote:
> Now, consider {poH nI’}. It’s a duration, but it has no anchor. It’s a 
> long time. So? When did it happen? We don’t know. It’s not deictic. 
> It’s not a reference to a calendar or a clock. It’s a duration without 
> an anchor. It is not a Time Stamp.

This isn't correct. We have seen *wa' jaj* used canonically exactly the 
way English /one day/ is used. It is neither deictic nor fixed to an 
"anchor." It is exactly as vague as *poH nI'.* But it is used as a time 
expression.

You /could/ use *poH nI'* as a time reference, but it would probably 
require special context. For instance, if you were talking about several 
periods of history, one of which was longer than the others, you might 
say something like *poH nI' chenpu' tayqeq'a'*/The great civilization 
formed in the long period./ You might not know exactly when the long 
period was, but you know it existed, and that's enough for a time 
expression.


-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220220/fbc05517/attachment-0016.htm>