Vanitas Vanitatum et Omnia Vanitas
wa'Hu', QIn vIghItlhta', 'ej 'oHvaD "the illusion of uniqueness" vIpongta'. 'ach qatlh QInvetlh vIghItlhta' ? QInvetlh vIghIlthta'; jIHvaD 'e' qaSmoH nuq ? qen, bong, paris catacombs bopbogh De''e' vIlaDpu'. chaq De'meyvam boSovbe' 'ej meqvammo' naDev De'meyvam vIghItlhqa'. tera' DIS wa'-Soch-chorgh-jav, buy'choHmo' paris molmeH Daq, HomDu'vaD Daq chu' luSuqnIS *paris*nganpu'. toH paris bIngDaq, *catacombs*Daq, HomDu' lanchoH.. tagha', *catacombs*vamDaq jav 'uy' nuv HomDu' lanta'.. HomDu' millogh vIleghta'DI', jI'IQqu'choH.. jav 'uy' nuv.. 'ej SIbI' jIQub: 'op ret yIn nuvpu'vam Hoch wa'. ngugh tullaH nuvvetlh. ngugh najlaH nuvvetlh.. 'ach tagha' *catacombs*vamDaq ratlh HomDu'Daj neH. 'ej DaH ghaH qaw pagh. Do'Ha' nuvpu'vam DIrur. mapIm, chaq 'e' wIHar, 'ach tagha' ratlh HomDu'maj neH. SKI: Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. qunnoH
jIH:
jIQub: 'op ret yIn nuvpu'vam Hoch wa'. ghunchu'wI': mu'tlheghvam vIyajlaHbe'. mu' Danoppu'a'?
The intented meaning was "I was thinking: some time ago, each one of these people was living (alive)". qunnoH raS De'wI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:35 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
jIQub: 'op ret yIn nuvpu'vam Hoch wa'.
mu'tlheghvam vIyajlaHbe'. mu' Danoppu'a'?
-- ghunchu'wI' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 10/7/2016 2:13 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
jIH:
jIQub: 'op ret yIn nuvpu'vam Hoch wa'. ghunchu'wI': mu'tlheghvam vIyajlaHbe'. mu' Danoppu'a'? The intented meaning was "I was thinking: some time ago, each one of these people was living (alive)".
This effect can be achieved with *'op ret yIn Hoch nuvvam*/some time ago each of these people lived./ When you use *Hoch* in front of a noun, if that noun lacks a plural suffix, the meaning is "each /noun//./" If the noun has a plural suffix, the meaning is "all /nouns./" Saying "all /nouns/" is the only time a plural suffix is required in Klingon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
Examples of {Hoch NOUN [singular]}: puqloDwI' le'qu', Hoch jaj choquvmoH My dearest son, each day you redeem me. (Frasier) Sometimes {Hoch NOUN} is translated as "every NOUN": DujDaj HubtaHvIS Hegh 'e' tul Hoch tlhIngan To die defending his ship is the hope of every Klingon. TKW Qu'Daj ta'taHvIS Hegh 'e' tul Hoch tlhIngan To die in the line of duty is the hope of every Klingon. TKW wo' toy'taHvIS Hegh 'e' tul Hoch tlhIngan To die while serving the Empire is the hope of every Klingon. TKW Hoch nuH yIqel! Consider every weapon! (idiom: "Consider every possibility!") KGT Hoch DuH yIqel Consider every possibility! KGT -- Voragh Ca'Non Master of the Klingons On Behalf Of SuStel Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 7:57 AM On 10/7/2016 2:13 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote: jIQub: 'op ret yIn nuvpu'vam Hoch wa'. The intented meaning was "I was thinking: some time ago, each one of these people was living (alive)". This effect can be achieved with 'op ret yIn Hoch nuvvam some time ago each of these people lived. When you use Hoch in front of a noun, if that noun lacks a plural suffix, the meaning is "each noun." If the noun has a plural suffix, the meaning is "all nouns." Saying "all nouns" is the only time a plural suffix is required in Klingon.
SuStel:
This effect can be achieved with *'op ret yIn* *> Hoch nuvvam**some time ago each of these* *> people lived.*
hmm.. this english translation of {Hoch nuvvam} confuses me; the way I understand it, it means "each this person". ?!?!? qunnoH ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On 7 Oct 2016 4:22 p.m., "Steven Boozer" <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:
Examples of {Hoch NOUN [singular]}:
*puqloDwI' le'qu', Hoch jaj choquvmoH *
My dearest son, each day you redeem me. (Frasier)
Sometimes {Hoch NOUN} is translated as “every NOUN”:
*DujDaj HubtaHvIS Hegh 'e' tul Hoch tlhIngan*
To die defending his ship is the hope of every Klingon. TKW
*Qu'Daj ta'taHvIS Hegh 'e' tul Hoch tlhIngan*
To die in the line of duty is the hope of every Klingon. TKW
*wo' toy'taHvIS Hegh 'e' tul Hoch tlhIngan*
To die while serving the Empire is the hope of every Klingon. TKW
*Hoch nuH yIqel*!
Consider every weapon!
(*idiom*: "Consider every possibility!") KGT
*Hoch DuH yIqel*
Consider every possibility! KGT
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
*On Behalf Of *SuStel *Sent:* Friday, October 07, 2016 7:57 AM
On 10/7/2016 2:13 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
jIQub: 'op ret yIn nuvpu'vam Hoch wa'.
The intented meaning was "I was thinking: some time ago, each one of
these people was living (alive)".
This effect can be achieved with *'op ret yIn Hoch nuvvam** some time ago each of these people lived.*
When you use *Hoch* in front of a noun, if that noun lacks a plural suffix, the meaning is "each *noun.*" If the noun has a plural suffix, the meaning is "all *nouns.*" Saying "all *nouns*" is the only time a plural suffix is required in Klingon.
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 10/7/2016 9:48 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
SuStel:
This effect can be achieved with *'op ret yIn* *> Hoch nuvvam*/some time ago each of these/ /> people lived./
hmm.. this english translation of {Hoch nuvvam} confuses me; the way I understand it, it means "each this person". ?!?!?
Crudely, yes. The colloquial English expression is "each of these people." -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jIQub: 'op ret yIn nuvpu'vam Hoch wa'.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:13 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The intented meaning was "I was thinking: some time ago, each one of these people was living (alive)".
{ret} alone, without being preceded by an actual specifier of a time period, is very odd. Translate it as just "ago" to see whether what you wrote makes sense. You could add {DIS}, or you could replace it with {ben}, to be "some years ago". You could use {pa'logh} "the past" if you want to be really general. You could just say {yInpu'} "had lived". Do you really mean "each *one* of them", or is "each person" or "each of them" sufficient? Or might you be okay with saying "all (of them)"? In any case, the word {Hoch} ought to go either before or in place of the noun it is referring to. If you actually want to say that each individual person lived in turn, implying a focus on them one at a time, {ngIq} might work instead, but I don't think that's what you mean. The number {wa'} in Klingon usually isn't appropriate for the kind of nonspecific "one" that you're trying to say. Try to avoid stretching it beyond counting or labeling things. -- ghunchu'wI'
ghunchu'wI':
{ret} alone, without being preceded by an actual specifier of a time period, is very odd.
I know. Because of that reason in the original sentence I wrote {'op ret}. ghunchu'wI':
You could add {DIS}, or you could replace it with {ben}, to be "some years ago"
The way I understand words similar to {ret}, they need to be preceeded or followed by something expressing a number (either a number or law'/puS/'Iq etc). So, how can we write {DIS ret} ? Or even worst use {ben} on its own ? ghunchu'wI':
In any case, the word {Hoch} ought to go either before or in place of the noun it is referring to.
Because of this reason, I placed it before the {wa'} which was used as noun. I chose this because of the canon example "kill one of them I don't care who". (I don't remember it exactly at the moment) qunnoH On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
jIQub: 'op ret yIn nuvpu'vam Hoch wa'.
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:13 AM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
The intented meaning was "I was thinking: some time ago, each one of these people was living (alive)".
{ret} alone, without being preceded by an actual specifier of a time period, is very odd. Translate it as just "ago" to see whether what you wrote makes sense. You could add {DIS}, or you could replace it with {ben}, to be "some years ago". You could use {pa'logh} "the past" if you want to be really general. You could just say {yInpu'} "had lived".
Do you really mean "each *one* of them", or is "each person" or "each of them" sufficient? Or might you be okay with saying "all (of them)"? In any case, the word {Hoch} ought to go either before or in place of the noun it is referring to. If you actually want to say that each individual person lived in turn, implying a focus on them one at a time, {ngIq} might work instead, but I don't think that's what you mean. The number {wa'} in Klingon usually isn't appropriate for the kind of nonspecific "one" that you're trying to say. Try to avoid stretching it beyond counting or labeling things.
-- ghunchu'wI' _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:06 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ghunchu'wI':
{ret} alone, without being preceded by an actual specifier of a time period, is very odd.
I know. Because of that reason in the original sentence I wrote {'op ret}.
Do you understand the sentence you quoted? Do you know what "time period" means? {'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.
ghunchu'wI':
You could add {DIS}, or you could replace it with {ben}, to be "some years ago"
The way I understand words similar to {ret}, they need to be preceeded or followed by something expressing a number (either a number or law'/puS/'Iq etc).
You have misunderstood. {ret} and {pIq} need to be preceded by something representing a *period of time*.
So, how can we write {DIS ret} ? Or even worst use {ben} on its own ?
You use them the way you thought a bare {ret} works. Quantify them with a count before them, or with a numberlike verb after them.
ghunchu'wI':
In any case, the word {Hoch} ought to go either before or in place of the noun it is referring to.
Because of this reason, I placed it before the {wa'} which was used as noun. I chose this because of the canon example "kill one of them I don't care who". (I don't remember it exactly at the moment)
{wa' yIHoH} "Kill one (of them)." It's an example of using a number as a noun, and it counts an amount of something which is already part of the discussion. What you're trying to do is very different. You aren't counting "one" of anything. Again, {wa'} doesn't work as a translation of the indefinite pronoun "one". The simplest fix for this phrase is just to say {nuv} where you tried to put {wa'}. -- ghunchu'wI'
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:06 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
ghunchu'wI':
{ret} alone, without being preceded by an actual specifier of a time period, is very odd.
I know. Because of that reason in the original sentence I wrote {'op ret}.
Do you understand the sentence you quoted? Do you know what "time period" means?
{'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/
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. -- ghunchu'wI'
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.
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
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
On 8 October 2016 at 09:12, 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.
I think this may be just an issue of something that is slightly odd, but is just understandable enough that most people feel it's not worth pointing out. {'op ret} without a unit of time is like saying "some ago" in English. Really, if you mean "one day in the past", it ought to be {'op Hu'}. -- De'vID
De'vID:
{'op ret} without a unit of time is like saying "some ago" in English.
Couldn't {'op ret} mean "some time ago" too ? Why limit it only to "some ago" ? Don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to argue. I'm just trying to understand ! qunnoH On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 11:36 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2016 at 09:12, 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.
I think this may be just an issue of something that is slightly odd, but is just understandable enough that most people feel it's not worth pointing out. {'op ret} without a unit of time is like saying "some ago" in English. Really, if you mean "one day in the past", it ought to be {'op Hu'}.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 10 October 2016 at 12:11, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{'op ret} without a unit of time is like saying "some ago" in English.
Couldn't {'op ret} mean "some time ago" too ? Why limit it only to "some ago" ?
Don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to argue. I'm just trying to understand !
From: http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-09-holqed-08-3.txt <<For other units of time (seconds, minutes, hours, weeks), two more general words are used: {ret} time period ago {pIq} time period from now (One might say that these are associated with the word {poH} <period of time>.) These words follow the more specific time units.>> The word {ret} has to be preceded by a unit of time (excluding days, months, or years, which usually use another word). {'op} is not a unit of time. This is what ghunchu'wI' was trying to get you to understand. -- De'vID
maj. I'll update my notes right away. qunnoH ghogh HablI'wIjvo' vIngeHta' On 10 Oct 2016 2:06 p.m., "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 October 2016 at 12:11, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{'op ret} without a unit of time is like saying "some ago" in English.
Couldn't {'op ret} mean "some time ago" too ? Why limit it only to "some ago" ?
Don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to argue. I'm just trying to understand !
From: http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-09-holqed-08-3.txt
<<For other units of time (seconds, minutes, hours, weeks), two more general words are used:
{ret} time period ago
{pIq} time period from now
(One might say that these are associated with the word {poH} <period of time>.) These words follow the more specific time units.>>
The word {ret} has to be preceded by a unit of time (excluding days, months, or years, which usually use another word). {'op} is not a unit of time. This is what ghunchu'wI' was trying to get you to understand.
-- De'vID _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 4:36 AM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2016 at 09:12, 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.
I think this may be just an issue of something that is slightly odd, but is just understandable enough that most people feel it's not worth pointing out. {'op ret} without a unit of time is like saying "some ago" in English. Really, if you mean "one day in the past", it ought to be {'op Hu'}.
I would argue that {'op ret} without a unit of time is like saying "at some time in the past" in English, since that's what's provided as the translation for {'op ret} without a unit of time in the qep'a' materials. Was there some other information provided at the qep'a' but not shared online that would suggest that MO meant this to be a shorthand notation for general {'op X} time phrases, and not a phrase in its own right? Based on the way the handout is phrased and presented, it seemed pretty clear to me that {'op ret} and {'op pIq} are acceptable phrases for describing unspecified times in the past or future. I know that {ret} and {pIq} usually require a time period noun, and if you want to emphasize that the time in the past is measured in, say, weeks ago rather than days ago or centuries ago, I think you should use {'op Hogh ret}. But if you're not specifying a time frame, and just referring to any time in the past, why does it matter whether there's a unit? {'op ret} would just literally mean "some unspecified amount of unspecified time periods ago". Admittedly, this particular expression probably doesn't see much everyday use, given the Klingon cultural reluctance to be imprecise, but I don't see why that would make {'op ret} any more ungrammatical than, say, {jIHeghvIp}.
On 8 October 2016 at 06:03, nIqolay Q <niqolay0@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Alan Anderson <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
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 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.
Here's the part in question: {pa'logh} - noun, the past (as a whole) Compare: {'op ret} (at some time in the past) {tuch} - noun, the future (as a whole) Compare: {'op pIq} (at some time in the future) I read that as saying that while {'op ret} and {'op pIq} are used as time stamps for specific *points* in time, {pa'logh} and {tuch} are used for all of time (i.e., the entire time *line*) in the past and future respectively. The contrast isn't between whether one can be used or is preferable as a timestamp, but what shape the time so described has. As a language with aspect, it makes sense to me that Klingon would distinguish between these specifically. The canon example is {'opleS chovan tujmaj vIDevmo'} "One day... you will bow for me as leader of our house." ({leS} is used in place of {pIq} when the unit is days.) What this says is that there will exist one day in the future, on which you will salute me because I lead our house. Consider a sentence like this: {'opleS pongwIj qawlu'} "on some day in the future, my name will be remembered." In contrast, {tuch pongwIj qawlu'taH} would mean "in the future (in all of the future, not merely on a specific day or point in time), my name will be remembered." -- De'vID
participants (6)
-
Alan Anderson -
De'vID -
mayqel qunenoS -
nIqolay Q -
Steven Boozer -
SuStel