Use the corresponding verbs {Qoj} or {ghob}: (KGT 47): In parallel fashion, any specific battle is {may'}, but the concept of battle is {vIq}, often translated as combat. Similarly, there are several verbs for fight, battle, and the like. Most broadly, do battle or wage war--that is, actually engage in a conflict in which a number of combatants are involved--is {ghob}. The notion of make war in the general sense, referring to the idea of war and not a specific war, is {Qoj}. The verb for fight, whether in a war or a one-on-one confrontation, is {Suv}. In short, the nouns {veS} (war, warfare) and {vIq} (combat) and the verb {Qoj} (wage war) all are used to refer to the ideas of warfare, combat, and making war, while the nouns {noH} (war) and {may'} (battle) and the verbs {ghob} (make war, do battle) and {Suv} (fight) are used when referring to specific, concrete instances of war, battle, and fighting. Thus it is possible to say ... {may' ghob} or {may' Suv}, meaning He/she fights a battle, but it is not normally acceptable to say ... {vIq Suv} (He/she fights a combat). --Voragh On Behalf Of mayqel qunenoS SuStel:

I don't think one can yIn a may'

hehehe.. you're right ! I just couldn't think of any other word ! qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 27 Dec 2016 8:29 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name<mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote: On 12/27/2016 1:24 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: SuStel:

like a single fight during a period of three years

I guess this means something like: {qaStaHvIS wej DIS wa' may' neH wIyIn} we only had one battle during three years right ? Er... I don't think one can yIn a may'... But qaStaHvIS wej DIS wa' may' neH wISuv would be correct.

On 12/27/2016 2:24 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

if I want to say "for many years, I have my phone's sound level set at maximum", then there are two options:

{DIS law', ghoghwIj HablI'vaD wab 'aqroS patlh vIlo'} or {qaStaHvIS DIS law', ghoghwIj HablI'vaD wab 'aqroS patlh vIlo'}

if I understand correctly what was said so far, then at this example the {qaStaHvIS} is unnecessary, right ? we can use it if we want, but it isn't necessary, right ?

No. In this case you need the *qaStaHvIS,* because *DIS law'* is only a time period, not a time stamp. It tells you a duration; it does not pinpoint a moment. You could say *ben law' ghogh HablI'wIj 'aqroS wab patlh vIlo'* but that would mean /many years ago I used my phone's maximum sound level,/ but that doesn't tell us anything about how long you did this. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name

ok, scratch that. even with the {wa'maH DIS} we would need the {qaStaHvIS}. however, if I wrote {wa'maH DIS vorgh} then the {qaStaHvIS} would be unnecessary, right ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' SuvwI'pu'qoq Hol tughojmoHta'mo' Satlho' On 27 Dec 2016 9:45 pm, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

I see.. so if instead of the {DIS law'}, we had lets say {wa'maH DIS}, then we could omit the {qaStaHvIS}, and just write {wa'maH DIS, ghoghwIj HablI' wab 'aqroS patlh vI'lo'}, right ?

qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' SuvwI'pu'qoq Hol tughojmoHta'mo' Satlho'

On 27 Dec 2016 9:38 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

...

On 12/27/2016 2:24 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

if I want to say "for many years, I have my phone's sound level set at maximum", then there are two options:

{DIS law', ghoghwIj HablI'vaD wab 'aqroS patlh vIlo'} or {qaStaHvIS DIS law', ghoghwIj HablI'vaD wab 'aqroS patlh vIlo'}

if I understand correctly what was said so far, then at this example the {qaStaHvIS} is unnecessary, right ? we can use it if we want, but it isn't necessary, right ?

No. In this case you need the *qaStaHvIS,* because *DIS law'* is only a time period, not a time stamp. It tells you a duration; it does not pinpoint a moment.

You could say *ben law' ghogh HablI'wIj 'aqroS wab patlh vIlo'* but that would mean *many years ago I used my phone's maximum sound level,* but that doesn't tell us anything about how long you did this.

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

SuStel, I've been re-thinking this whole matter, and I would like to write my conclusions so far. Please read them, and tell me what you think.. When we say {DaSjaj mavum}, the {qaStaHvIS} is unnecessary. Why ? For two reasons: First, because there is no direct need to specify that during the entire day we will be working. And second, even without it, there is no confusion for the reader/listener. Let alone the fact, that its addition could convey the false meaning that "during the entire 24 hours of the day we will be working". On the other hand though, its addition or not could depend on what we want to say: if we are answering to the question: "on monday do you want to grab a coffee?" then we can answer {ghobe', qaStaHvIS DaSjaj mavum}. It is not that the {ghobe', DaSjaj mavum} is wrong; it is only that it doesn't carry the punch of saying "no, during monday we work". if we are answering to the question: "what do you do on monday ?" then we are just answering {DaSjaj mavum}, because there is no need to specify that during monday/during the entire monday we will be working. maj.. But when we say {qaStaHvIS wa'maH DIS maSuv} for "during ten years we are fighting", the {qaStaHvIS} is necessary because we obviously want to convey, that the event of "our fighting" takes place over the period of a large time span. Since we want to convey the "during" aspect, then obviously the {qaStaHvIS} is necessary. If we didn't use it, then perhaps the reader/listener could be left to wonder: "did they fight during the entire time-span ?". And this possible confusion of the reader/listener is the only tangible reason I can find which makes the {qaStaHvIS} necessary. Now, perhaps there is an additional reason.. if we just wrote: {wa'maH DIS maSuv}, then the feeling that I get from this sentence is that we have a {wa'maH DIS} which is very "independent/out of the blue/undetermined/undescribed". And perhaps, here is the problem with big periods of time requiring the {qaStaHvIS}; one can understand if we just say {po'}, {DaSjaj}. {DaSjaj, povjaj je}. These are small time spans. But when we use large time spans, however arbitrary their definition may be, we need the {qaStaHvIS}, in order to convey that something takes place over/during them. Let alone, that for reasons I can't explain, it just "doesn't feel right" to have a big time-span e.g. {wa'maH DIS}, without something specifying it: {ben}/{nem}/{qaStaHvIS}. And then we have the canon example of voragh: {qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD} 4,000 throats may be cut in one night by a running man Here the {qaStaHvIS} is essential in order to differentiate between an event happening "during a night", and an event happening "one night". If my above conclusions are correct, then the only obvious problem is defining what constitutes "a small period of time", and "a big period of time". Currently the only definition I can think of, is: single day, and times of it (morning, afternoon, night, etc) : small periods of time anything else (weeks, months, years, etc) : big periods of time However, a final question comes to mind: "could we have it as rule, that when something happens during a small period of time then the {qaStaHvIS} is always unnecessary" ? I don't know whether we could have it as rule, but I feel that unless we want to emphasize that during that entire small time period something takes place, then there is no actual need for it. Anyway, this is my understanding of the {qaStaHvIS} so far, looking forward to your comments.. qunnoH jan puqloD On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 10:06 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 12/27/2016 2:50 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

...

ok, scratch that. even with the {wa'maH DIS} we would need the {qaStaHvIS}.

however, if I wrote {wa'maH DIS vorgh} then the {qaStaHvIS} would be unnecessary, right ?

Still need it.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

I realize where my confusion lies.. I don't know the difference between a time span, and a time stamp. So far, I believed that these two are the same. So, what is the difference between them ? I know that a time span is a period of time (2 seconds, 4 minutes, 6 hours, 7 days, 10 months, 12 years, 14 centuries, etc). But what is a time stamp, and how is it any different from a time span ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 28 Dec 2016 3:00 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 12/28/2016 6:34 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

When we say {DaSjaj mavum}, the {qaStaHvIS} is unnecessary. Why ? For two reasons: First, because there is no direct need to specify that during the entire day we will be working.

*qaStaHvIS DaSjaj* *mavum* doesn't say you're working for an entire Monday. It says we work during Monday. We might work for one minute or one hour or eight hours or twenty-four hours.

if we are answering to the question: "on monday do you want to grab a coffee?" then we can answer {ghobe', qaStaHvIS DaSjaj mavum}. It is not that the {ghobe', DaSjaj mavum} is wrong; it is only that it doesn't carry the punch of saying "no, during monday we work".

*DaSjaj mavum* would be used to point to a calendar to show why we can't go for coffee that day. *qaStaHvIS DaSjaj mavum* would be used to set the context that Monday is ongoing, and then work happened.

But when we say {qaStaHvIS wa'maH DIS maSuv} for "during ten years we are fighting", the {qaStaHvIS} is necessary because we obviously want to convey, that the event of "our fighting" takes place over the period of a large time span.

No, the *qaStaHvIS* is necessary because *wa'maH DIS* is not a time stamp.

Since we want to convey the "during" aspect, then obviously the {qaStaHvIS} is necessary. If we didn't use it, then perhaps the reader/listener could be left to wonder: "did they fight during the entire time-span ?".

Without it the reader/listener would be left wondering what that *wa'maH DIS* was doing in the sentence. Is it an object? What's its grammatical role? *wa'maH DIS* does not mean *for ten years;* that *for* is the *qaStaHvIS.* w*a'maH DIS* means only *ten years.*

Now, perhaps there is an additional reason.. if we just wrote: {wa'maH DIS maSuv}, then the feeling that I get from this sentence is that we have a {wa'maH DIS} which is very "independent/out of the blue/undetermined/undescribed". And perhaps, here is the problem with big periods of time requiring the {qaStaHvIS}; one can understand if we just say {po'}, {DaSjaj}. {DaSjaj, povjaj je}. These are small time spans.

Your feeling is correct but it's not because of the size of the time span. It's because a time span is not a time stamp.

And then we have the canon example of voragh: {qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD} 4,000 throats may be cut in one night by a running man

Here the {qaStaHvIS} is essential in order to differentiate between an event happening "during a night", and an event happening "one night".

Which works because *wa' jaj* *one day* works in the same way as it does in English: as a time stamp. We see this in the proverb *wa' jaj 'etlh 'uchchoHlaH tlhIngan puqloD; jajvetlh loD nen moj.* This is a time stamp. Don't think of *wa' jaj* as a time period, like *cha' jaj* or *wej jaj,* think of it as "one of those days I can point to on the calendar," or "this day, not that day."

However, a final question comes to mind: "could we have it as rule, that when something happens during a small period of time then the {qaStaHvIS} is always unnecessary" ?

No.

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

any two consecutive days is a time span of two days. for example sm, mt, tw, wt, tf, fs. but I can't understand.. why can't a week, or a year be a time stamp ? why can't we consider the {DIS vorgh} to be a time stamp ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 28 Dec 2016 4:05 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 12/28/2016 8:17 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

...

I don't know the difference between a time span, and a time stamp. So far, I believed that these two are the same.

Here's a timeline of a week:

SSSSSSSSSSMMMMMMMMMMTTTTTTTTTTWWWWWWWWWWTTTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFSSSSSSSSSS

I can point out to you any given day as a time stamp. For instance, here's Monday:

SSSSSSSSSS[MMMMMMMMMM]TTTTTTTTTTWWWWWWWWWWTTTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFSSSSSSSSSS

Now tell me: where on this timeline is the time span "two days"?

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

ok, I understand the difference between a time span and a time stamp. so, applying this distinction in the {qaStaHvIS} discussion, I understand that: "..when we are using time stamps, the {qaStaHvIS} may or may not be used, depending on the occasion. but when we are using time periods, then the {qaStaHvIS} is absolutely necessary.." would you agree with the above ? and something else. since {DIS vorgh} is a time stamp, would you agree with {Soch DIS vorgh jIQuch} for "the previous 7 years I was happy" ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 28 Dec 2016 4:25 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 12/28/2016 9:12 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:

any two consecutive days is a time span of two days. for example sm, mt, tw, wt, tf, fs.

But which two are the ones you're talking about in the hypothetical **cha' jaj mavum*? As a time stamp, you should be able to point out an exact point, just as you could with "Monday."

but I can't understand.. why can't a week, or a year be a time stamp ? why can't we consider the {DIS vorgh} to be a time stamp ?

It IS a time stamp. *DIS vorgh* is a particular year that I can point to on a calendar. But just *DIS* is not a time stamp; I can't point to "year" on a calendar. Which year?

-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

ghunchu'wI':

You have not yet demonstrated your understanding.

I wrote earlier my understanding of time span and time stamp, through the dialogue which took place between me and SuStel. did you expect me to write specific examples or something ? As far as the {Soch DIS vorgh jIQuch}, is concerned, I still can't understand where is the problem. 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 ? You can say that for you "it doesn't convey the desired meaning/feeling/whatever". But is it ungrammatical ? If the sentence utilized a time span instead i.e. {Soch DIS jIQuch}, then for the reasons SuStel explained, it would be ungrammatical. But since it uses a time stamp, then where is the problem ? Can you explain with reasonable arguments why I can say {DaSjaj jIQuch}, while at the same time you are telling me that I cannot say {Soch DIS vorgh jIQuch} ? Or is the {qaStaHvIS} another glorious "maltz said so" ? because if it is, then hey I'm all for it ! just tell me though, and save me the grief of trying to understand obviously contradictory explanations. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' SuvwI'pu'qoq Hol tughojmoHta'mo' Satlho' On 28 Dec 2016 6:57 pm, "Alan Anderson" <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 9:51 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

ok, I understand the difference between a time span and a time stamp.

You have not yet demonstrated your understanding. The distinction is in the word "span" -- it represents a measured period of time, with a beginning an an end. In contrast, a "stamp" is like a finger pointing to a spot on a calendar, or on a clock, indicating a specific time. It isn't necessarily an instantaneous *moment*, but it doesn't count the passage of time.

...

so, applying this distinction in the {qaStaHvIS} discussion, I understand that:

"..when we are using time stamps, the {qaStaHvIS} may or may not be used, depending on the occasion. but when we are using time periods, then the {qaStaHvIS} is absolutely necessary.."

would you agree with the above ?

I do not agree. As soon as you say {qaStaH}, you're making the phrase talk about a duration. It's no longer acting as a time stamp.

...

and something else. since {DIS vorgh} is a time stamp, would you agree with {Soch DIS vorgh jIQuch} for "the previous 7 years I was happy" ?

I do not agree. The English would usually be "during the previous 7 years". If you are trying to say something else, it is not apparent. You seem to be wanting to focus on a seven year span. That needs a verb to represent the passing of time, and the usual one is {qaStaHvIS}.

-- ghunchu'wI'

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

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

ghunchu'wI:

SuStel has already given exactly the reasonable arguments I would use. I don't know how to improve on them.

maj. there you go ! I am an idiot, who is unable to understand the obvious. however, this is truly strange; through the 14 months I have been on this list, we have discussed countless things; and always we came to a conclusion. Unfortunately, at this thread, on this occasion, what has been said so far fails to explain why the {Soch DIS vorgh jIQuch} is ungrammatical. The only reasonable explanation is, if someone wrote "because maltz said so". Instead, there is no "maltz said so", but a countless list of arguments which leads to nowhere. Thank you for taking the time to explain all this, but since I can't understand what's going on here, I will continue using expressions like {Soch DIS vorgh} without the {qaStaHvIS}. Perhaps they make sense only to me, but hey, who is actually reading the klingon posts I write ? So, lets agree to disagree on this one. qunnoH jan puqloD you have some stuffed to'baj leg in your teeth On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 10:21 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 12/28/2016 3:16 PM, SuStel wrote:

...

It's telling me WHEN something happened, not HOW LONG something took.

Or to put it another way: a time expression is just a phrase of some kind. Whether it's a time stamp or a time span or both or neither is all in how you use it; it's not inherent to the expression. There's no list of acceptable time stamps and acceptable time spans.

-- SuStel http://trimboli.name

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

On 29 December 2016 at 09:15, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

ghunchu'wI:

...

SuStel has already given exactly the reasonable arguments I would use. I don't know how to improve on them.

maj. there you go ! I am an idiot, who is unable to understand the obvious.

however, this is truly strange; through the 14 months I have been on this list, we have discussed countless things; and always we came to a conclusion.

Unfortunately, at this thread, on this occasion, what has been said so far fails to explain why the {Soch DIS vorgh jIQuch} is ungrammatical.

The explanation seems fairly clear to me. What grammatical role does {Soch DIS vorgh} play in that sentence? It's either missing a verb ({qaStaHvIS}) that relates it to the rest of the sentence, or it's missing a noun which would turn it into a time stamp ({poH}).

The only reasonable explanation is, if someone wrote "because maltz said so". Instead, there is no "maltz said so", but a countless list of arguments which leads to nowhere.

No, I don't think a ruling from Maltz is necessary here. Nothing in the known grammar of Klingon allows you to stick a period of time like {Soch DIS vorgh} in front of a sentence like you want. -- De'vID

I would use {qaStaHvIS DIS law'}since I’m assuming that your phone’s volume has been low *continuously* rather than just occasionally (say when you want to sleep). Remember the proverb: qaStaHvIS wa' ram loS SaD Hugh SIjlaH qetbogh loD 4,000 throats may be cut in one night by a running man. TKD This means that the man can accomplish this seemingly impossible task *during* a single night if he’s determined and/or inventive – i.e. if he runs instead of walking or waiting for others to bring his victims to him. (Normally killing so many people by hand would take much longer.) For me at least, omitting {qaStaHvIS} “while it continually occurs/happens” turns {wa’ ram} into a simple time-stamp: i.e. one unspecified night in the past or the present or the future. --Voragh On Behalf Of mayqel qunenoS thank you ca'non master ! however before I sleep, there is a final question I need to ask, in order to verify that I accurately understood this matter. if I want to say "for many years, I have my phone's sound level set at maximum", then there are two options: {DIS law', ghoghwIj HablI'vaD wab 'aqroS patlh vIlo'} or {qaStaHvIS DIS law', ghoghwIj HablI'vaD wab 'aqroS patlh vIlo'} if I understand correctly what was said so far, then at this example the {qaStaHvIS} is unnecessary, right ? we can use it if we want, but it isn't necessary, right ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' SuvwI'pu'qoq Hol tughojmoHta'mo' Satlho' On 27 Dec 2016 8:53 pm, "Steven Boozer" <sboozer@uchicago.edu<mailto:sboozer@uchicago.edu>> wrote: Use the corresponding verbs {Qoj} or {ghob}: (KGT 47): In parallel fashion, any specific battle is {may'}, but the concept of battle is {vIq}, often translated as combat. Similarly, there are several verbs for fight, battle, and the like. Most broadly, do battle or wage war--that is, actually engage in a conflict in which a number of combatants are involved--is {ghob}. The notion of make war in the general sense, referring to the idea of war and not a specific war, is {Qoj}. The verb for fight, whether in a war or a one-on-one confrontation, is {Suv}. In short, the nouns {veS} (war, warfare) and {vIq} (combat) and the verb {Qoj} (wage war) all are used to refer to the ideas of warfare, combat, and making war, while the nouns {noH} (war) and {may'} (battle) and the verbs {ghob} (make war, do battle) and {Suv} (fight) are used when referring to specific, concrete instances of war, battle, and fighting. Thus it is possible to say ... {may' ghob} or {may' Suv}, meaning He/she fights a battle, but it is not normally acceptable to say ... {vIq Suv} (He/she fights a combat). --Voragh On Behalf Of mayqel qunenoS SuStel:

I don't think one can yIn a may'

hehehe.. you're right ! I just couldn't think of any other word ! qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 27 Dec 2016 8:29 pm, "SuStel" <sustel@trimboli.name<mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote: On 12/27/2016 1:24 PM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: SuStel:

like a single fight during a period of three years

I guess this means something like: {qaStaHvIS wej DIS wa' may' neH wIyIn} we only had one battle during three years right ? Er... I don't think one can yIn a may'... But qaStaHvIS wej DIS wa' may' neH wISuv would be correct. _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org<mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org