I realize where my confusion lies.. I don't know the difference between a time span, and a time stamp. So far, I believed that these two are the same. So, what is the difference between them ? I know that a time span is a period of time (2 seconds, 4 minutes, 6 hours, 7 days, 10 months, 12 years, 14 centuries, etc). But what is a time stamp, and how is it any different from a time span ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 28 Dec 2016 3:00 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 12/28/2016 6:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
When we say {DaSjaj mavum}, the {qaStaHvIS} is unnecessary. Why ? For two reasons: First, because there is no direct need to specify that during the entire day we will be working.
*qaStaHvIS DaSjaj* *mavum* doesn't say you're working for an entire Monday. It says we work during Monday. We might work for one minute or one hour or eight hours or twenty-four hours.
if we are answering to the question: "on monday do you want to grab a coffee?" then we can answer {ghobe', qaStaHvIS DaSjaj mavum}. It is not that the {ghobe', DaSjaj mavum} is wrong; it is only that it doesn't carry the punch of saying "no, during monday we work".
*DaSjaj mavum* would be used to point to a calendar to show why we can't go for coffee that day. *qaStaHvIS DaSjaj mavum* would be used to set the context that Monday is ongoing, and then work happened.
But when we say {qaStaHvIS wa'maH DIS maSuv} for "during ten years we are fighting", the {qaStaHvIS} is necessary because we obviously want to convey, that the event of "our fighting" takes place over the period of a large time span.
No, the *qaStaHvIS* is necessary because *wa'maH DIS* is not a time stamp.
Since we want to convey the "during" aspect, then obviously the {qaStaHvIS} is necessary. If we didn't use it, then perhaps the reader/listener could be left to wonder: "did they fight during the entire time-span ?".
Without it the reader/listener would be left wondering what that *wa'maH DIS* was doing in the sentence. Is it an object? What's its grammatical role? *wa'maH DIS* does not mean *for ten years;* that *for* is the *qaStaHvIS.* w*a'maH DIS* means only *ten years.*
Now, perhaps there is an additional reason.. if we just wrote: {wa'maH DIS maSuv}, then the feeling that I get from this sentence is that we have a {wa'maH DIS} which is very "independent/out of the blue/undetermined/undescribed". And perhaps, here is the problem with big periods of time requiring the {qaStaHvIS}; one can understand if we just say {po'}, {DaSjaj}. {DaSjaj, povjaj je}. These are small time spans.
Your feeling is correct but it's not because of the size of the time span. It's because a time span is not a time stamp.
And then we have the canon example of voragh: {qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD} 4,000 throats may be cut in one night by a running man
Here the {qaStaHvIS} is essential in order to differentiate between an event happening "during a night", and an event happening "one night".
Which works because *wa' jaj* *one day* works in the same way as it does in English: as a time stamp. We see this in the proverb *wa' jaj 'etlh 'uchchoHlaH tlhIngan puqloD; jajvetlh loD nen moj.* This is a time stamp. Don't think of *wa' jaj* as a time period, like *cha' jaj* or *wej jaj,* think of it as "one of those days I can point to on the calendar," or "this day, not that day."
However, a final question comes to mind: "could we have it as rule, that when something happens during a small period of time then the {qaStaHvIS} is always unnecessary" ?
No.
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org