On 12/28/2016 2:39 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
As SuStel said, {Soch DIS vorgh} is a time stamp. As was said earlier in this thread, time stamps don't require the {qaStaHvIS}. So, in the {Soch DIS vorgh jIQuch}, where is the problem ?
I haven't seen a message where he said that {Soch DIS vorgh} is a time stamp. On the contrary, I have seen him pointing out that counting days or years makes them *not* a time stamp.
I said *DIS vorgh *is a time stamp. You're not counting it; you're labeling it. *cha' DIS vorgh* would be counting years. *DISvam jatlhchoH puq. DIS vorgh yItchoH puq. cha' ben boghpu' puq.* I don't feel comfortable saying **cha' DIS vorgh boghpu' puq* because it sounds like "the previous two years" rather than "two years previously"; it sounds like I'm counting years instead of choosing a moment in time. If there were such a thing as a **cha'DIS*/biyear, /then it might make sense, but there is no such thing. If there were such a thing as a **SochDIS*/seven-year,/ then I would accept **SochDIS vorgh* as referring to the /previous seven-year,/ but there is no such thing as a seven-year. If you said *Soch DIS vorgh poH jIQuch* I would accept it, because here you're LABELING your time span as the /period of time of the previous seven years./ It would parallel *vatlh DIS poH vorgh jIboghpu'*/I was born in the previous century./ It's telling me WHEN something happened, not HOW LONG something took. Many time stamps can be time spans as well, BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME (no pun intended). *DISvam* /this year/ can LABEL a year in which something happens, OR it can simply be acted on as a thing in and of itself, as a time span. This is where you're getting confused: determining which time spans can act as time stamps. A time stamp tells me WHEN something happens; a time span does not all by itself. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name