<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/9/2024 8:03 AM, Will Martin via
tlhIngan-Hol wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:D419A99F-9AC5-44F0-8B41-582440621D7F@gmail.com">
loSmaH vagh ben jIbogh.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>“Forty five years ago, I was born.”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don’t think we have been given any other phrasing for the
concept.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>In fact, our canonical sentence is: <b>loSmaH ben jIboghpu' </b><i>I
was born 40 years ago.</i><br>
</p>
<p>That <b>-pu'</b> tells you you're reporting a completed event
from the perspective of some time later. If you were to say <b>loSmaH
ben jIbogh,</b> it would be more like setting the stage and
putting your listener into your shoes at the time: the time is 40
years ago, and I'm being born.</p>
<p><b>loSmaH ben jIboghpu':</b> Forty years ago, I was born, and it
was done.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:D419A99F-9AC5-44F0-8B41-582440621D7F@gmail.com">
<div> I guess if you want to make sure you mean that this isn’t a
status you’ve had for a significant fraction of the past year,
you could say {loSmaH vague ben jIboghchoH}.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't see how it means that.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:D419A99F-9AC5-44F0-8B41-582440621D7F@gmail.com">
<div>Anyway, to start with the perpetual deictic truth, “I am”,
then giving a number, then indicating that the number is a time
number counting years, then using the word adjective “old”, so
that the listener can retain this string of words and parse it
into you telling that you were born 45 years ago is as
inefficient as it is strange, but among English speakers, it’s
normal.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Doesn't seem inefficient to me.</p>
<p>Welsh works similarly to English: <i>Dw i'n bedwar deg pump oed.
Dw</i> is the first-person present conjugation of <i>bod</i>
"to be" (also written as <i>rydw</i> or <i>ydw</i>). <i>I</i>
is "I." <i>Pedwar deg pump</i> is "forty-five" (with a soft
mutation to <u><i>bedwar</i></u>). <i>Oed</i> is "age." Welsh
has VSO syntax, so literally this is "Am I forty-five age," or "I
am forty-five age."</p>
<p>(If I were a woman, I'd say <i>Dw i'n bedair deg pump oed.</i> <i>Pedair</i>
is the feminine version of "four"; <i>Pedwar </i>is the
masculine version. And there are various dialects of Welsh that
might change the form of <i>bod.</i>)</p>
<p>The point is, English isn't all that unusual in stating one's age
by saying "be number thing."<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:D419A99F-9AC5-44F0-8B41-582440621D7F@gmail.com">
<div>Klingon gives you the number, then the word establishing the
number as a time stamp, so you know something happened 45 years
ago, then efficiently tells them that you were born then. It
doesn’t suggest that your age has all that much to do with who
or what you “are”. Apparently, Klingons don’t take their age as
an essential part of their identity, or if they do, it’s not so
obvious in its expression in the language.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>"To be" is so ubiquitous in languages like English and Welsh that
it doesn't only refer to an essential part of the identity of the
subject. When I say <i>I am running,</i> I'm not saying that I am
the Platonic idea of the concept of running; it's just the way
English constructs present-tense sentences. Likewise, saying <i>I
am forty-five years old</i> isn't saying I am the essence of
forty-five-years-oldness, and I'm not saying my existence is
strongly identified with being forty-five; it's just the way
English says this thing.</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>