ok, thank you for explaining this.
it is not that I have anything against the {qaStaHvIS}; it is rather the fact, that many times during writing I find myself writing the {qaStaHvIS} again and again.
i wish there was an alternate expression, in order to be able to avoid repeating the same phrase time and again.
qunnoH
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
- André{ben law'} 'many years ago' would stand alone without a {qaStaHvIS} before it.A "time stamp" only marks a point in time, you can use words meaning "today", "on Monday", "in 2 years", etc. But in {DIS law'} you are not talking about a reference point in time, but about a long duration during which you did something. So {qaStaHvIS ...} is the correct option.Now you might argue that "in 2 years" and "(during) many years" both refer to quite broad time spans and not necessarily to *points* in time, but for "in 2 years" there is no duration specified, while "many years" explicitly refers to a duration.2016-11-08 11:51 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:Assume I want to write: "many years I've been tickling the cat".
If I stop and think, what most people here are expecting to see, I
then I would write:
{qaStaHvIS DIS law' vIghro' vIqotlh}.
However, I really can't see the reason why I cannot write:
{DIS law', vIghro' vIqotlh}.
Is this wrong ? And if it is, could someone be so kind as to explain why ?
qunnoH jan puqloD
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org