I agree with Lieven. The original question sounds like you're trying to be approximate. Embrace the inaccuracy! Is there some reason that it is important that it has not yet been a complete year? If so, then you are going to have to make that point separately. Jeremy Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org> on behalf of Lieven L. Litaer <levinius@gmx.de> Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 5:40:20 AM To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org Subject: Re: [tlhIngan Hol] ordering and scope of adverbials relative to timestamps Am 08.02.2019 um 10:48 schrieb De'vID:
Do you consider the sentence order to be fixed (with time stamps always ahead of adverbials, for example), Yes, that's my opinion too.
wrong or just might affect the emphasis and not the meaning? Or would you interpret the scope to change?
I think the problem here is not the word order, but the question whether {tlhoS} can modify the time stamp. I think it cannot. From my feeling, the adverbial modifies the entire sentence, so the meaning would remain "last year, something almost happened".
How would you say "almost one year ago [something happened]"? {wa' ben tugh [qaSpu' wanI']}?
I would try to make it two sentences: one for the event, one for the time that's not finished yet. {wa' ben [something happens], 'ach wej qaS wanI' DISjaj.} -- Lieven L. Litaer aka the "Klingon Teacher from Germany" http://www.klingonisch.de http://www.klingonwiki.net/En/StarTrekDiscovery _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org