ghunchu'wI':
You aren't counting "one" of anything
You're wrong. The original sentence was {nuvpu'vam Hoch wa'}. It is obvious that the reference is made to "each one" of the group of people, the mail is all about. qunnoH ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On 8 Oct 2016 10:12 a.m., "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ghunchu'wI'
Do you understand the sentence you quoted? Do you know what "time period" means
What I do understand, is that numerous times on this list the {'op ret} has been used without anyone objecting.
So, lets agree to disagree on this one.
qunnoH ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta'
On 8 Oct 2016 7:03 a.m., "nIqolay Q" <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:50 PM, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
{'op} just means "some, an unspecified amount". It isn't a time period like {rep} or {Hogh}. {'op ret} "some ago" is not a complete idea.
I think you might be out of the loop a bit. At the latest qep'a', MO explicitly gave examples that {'op ret} and {'op pIq} were used for "at some time in the past/future". It's the first image here: http://www.kli.org/activities/qepmey/qepa-chamah-wejdich/new-words/
I am very much in the loop. I was there at qep'a', and I have a copy of the booklet from which those images were produced. I read that part as saying that {pa'logh} and {tuch} are the preferred terms, in contrast to {'op ret} and {'op pIq}. That is why I called the {'op ret} phrase "odd".
I might be misinterpreting it, and I'm trying to reread it without prejudice.
I interpreted that passage as just clarifying that the new terms for past/future weren't used for time stamps, and that if you wanted a time stamp referencing the general past/future you would use the {'op ret/pIq} phrasing.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org