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