In order to indicate "many millenia ago", which is the correct choice ? {SaD DIS ret law'}, {SaD DIS law' ret} or {SaD law' DIS ret} ? qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
Don't forget that "years ago" is {ben}, so you can either say: 1) {SaD DIS law' ret} = many millennia ago, or 2) {SaD law' ben} = many thousand years ago. And these essentially mean the same. I might also accept {ben law'} as many years ago, although I'm not sure it works well. - André 2016-12-06 16:01 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
In order to indicate "many millenia ago", which is the correct choice ?
{SaD DIS ret law'}, {SaD DIS law' ret} or {SaD law' DIS ret} ?
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
Andre Muller:
I might also accept {ben law'} as many years ago, although I'm not sure it works well.
I remember voragh once writing: {ben law'qu'} has been used many times on this list to indicate "once upon a time". Now, as far as the three possible choices I wrote are concerned, I think that they are all valid with the meaning only slightly changing from one to the other: {SaD DIS ret law'} = many (thousands of years ago) {SaD DIS law' ret} = (many thousands of years) ago {SaD law' DIS ret} = (many thousands) of years ago If the above analysis is correct, then perhaps this all comes down to personal preference. qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta' On 6 Dec 2016 6:32 pm, "André Müller" <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't forget that "years ago" is {ben}, so you can either say: 1) {SaD DIS law' ret} = many millennia ago, or 2) {SaD law' ben} = many thousand years ago. And these essentially mean the same.
I might also accept {ben law'} as many years ago, although I'm not sure it works well.
- André
2016-12-06 16:01 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
In order to indicate "many millenia ago", which is the correct choice ?
{SaD DIS ret law'}, {SaD DIS law' ret} or {SaD law' DIS ret} ?
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I can understand the hesitancy with using *ben law'.* As a time expression, *ben* by itself points to a time, albeit a vague one. But it's a noun that indicates a point in time. So what does it mean if you have more than one *ben*? What are *benmey*? Surely we already know the answer to that: *cha' ben* means /two years ago,/ so *cha' benmey* also means /two years ago./ Multiple *benmey* means exactly the same thing as singular *ben*. So I see no grammatical reason why we can't speak of *ben law'*. *wa' ben, cha' ben, ben law'*/one year ago, two years ago, many years ago./ As for the original question, I'm not sure I see any significant difference between *SaD law' ben* and *SaD ben law'.* I think I'd go for the former, since it makes more sense to me to speak of years ago counting in the many thousands, rather than having many thousand-years-agos. On 12/6/2016 11:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Andre Muller:
I might also accept {ben law'} as many years ago, although I'm not sure it works well.
I remember voragh once writing: {ben law'qu'} has been used many times on this list to indicate "once upon a time".
Now, as far as the three possible choices I wrote are concerned, I think that they are all valid with the meaning only slightly changing from one to the other:
{SaD DIS ret law'} = many (thousands of years ago)
{SaD DIS law' ret} = (many thousands of years) ago
{SaD law' DIS ret} = (many thousands) of years ago
If the above analysis is correct, then perhaps this all comes down to personal preference.
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 6 Dec 2016 6:32 pm, "André Müller" <esperantist@gmail.com <mailto:esperantist@gmail.com>> wrote:
Don't forget that "years ago" is {ben}, so you can either say: 1) {SaD DIS law' ret} = many millennia ago, or 2) {SaD law' ben} = many thousand years ago. And these essentially mean the same.
I might also accept {ben law'} as many years ago, although I'm not sure it works well.
- André
2016-12-06 16:01 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>>:
In order to indicate "many millenia ago", which is the correct choice ?
{SaD DIS ret law'}, {SaD DIS law' ret} or {SaD law' DIS ret} ?
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
I agree, after thinking about what {ben} means, there's actually no reason not to use it. It just seemed unusual to me. However, there is a slight difference between {ben} and {benmey}. The latter means "years ago" and could be anything between 2 and 13 billion. {ben} itself can be interpreted as singular or (unmarked) plural, so it can mean "a year ago" or "years ago". {benmey} cannot mean "a year ago". But I wouldn't just use {ben} alone. If I'd see it in a text, I'd interprete it as meaning "one or more years ago". I wonder if {DIS ret} is possible as a kind of synonym of {ben}. I wouldn't use it. But it might not be strictly wrong. - André 2016-12-06 18:04 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>:
I can understand the hesitancy with using *ben law'.* As a time expression, *ben* by itself points to a time, albeit a vague one. But it's a noun that indicates a point in time. So what does it mean if you have more than one *ben*? What are *benmey*?
Surely we already know the answer to that: *cha' ben* means *two years ago,* so *cha' benmey* also means *two years ago.* Multiple *benmey* means exactly the same thing as singular *ben*. So I see no grammatical reason why we can't speak of *ben law'*. *wa' ben, cha' ben, ben law'** one year ago, two years ago, many years ago.*
As for the original question, I'm not sure I see any significant difference between *SaD law' ben* and *SaD ben law'.* I think I'd go for the former, since it makes more sense to me to speak of years ago counting in the many thousands, rather than having many thousand-years-agos.
On 12/6/2016 11:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Andre Muller:
I might also accept {ben law'} as many years ago, although I'm not sure it works well.
I remember voragh once writing: {ben law'qu'} has been used many times on this list to indicate "once upon a time".
Now, as far as the three possible choices I wrote are concerned, I think that they are all valid with the meaning only slightly changing from one to the other:
{SaD DIS ret law'} = many (thousands of years ago)
{SaD DIS law' ret} = (many thousands of years) ago
{SaD law' DIS ret} = (many thousands) of years ago
If the above analysis is correct, then perhaps this all comes down to personal preference.
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 6 Dec 2016 6:32 pm, "André Müller" <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't forget that "years ago" is {ben}, so you can either say: 1) {SaD DIS law' ret} = many millennia ago, or 2) {SaD law' ben} = many thousand years ago. And these essentially mean the same.
I might also accept {ben law'} as many years ago, although I'm not sure it works well.
- André
2016-12-06 16:01 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com>:
In order to indicate "many millenia ago", which is the correct choice ?
{SaD DIS ret law'}, {SaD DIS law' ret} or {SaD law' DIS ret} ?
-- SuStelhttp://trimboli.name
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
I see no problem at all with *DIS ret.* Yes, if *ben* were used alone, it would mean /one or more years ago. /I think that's what people mean when they use it that way; they intend to be vague. On 12/6/2016 12:25 PM, André Müller wrote:
I agree, after thinking about what {ben} means, there's actually no reason not to use it. It just seemed unusual to me. However, there is a slight difference between {ben} and {benmey}. The latter means "years ago" and could be anything between 2 and 13 billion. {ben} itself can be interpreted as singular or (unmarked) plural, so it can mean "a year ago" or "years ago". {benmey} cannot mean "a year ago". But I wouldn't just use {ben} alone. If I'd see it in a text, I'd interprete it as meaning "one or more years ago".
I wonder if {DIS ret} is possible as a kind of synonym of {ben}. I wouldn't use it. But it might not be strictly wrong.
- André
2016-12-06 18:04 GMT+01:00 SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>>:
I can understand the hesitancy with using *ben law'.* As a time expression, *ben* by itself points to a time, albeit a vague one. But it's a noun that indicates a point in time. So what does it mean if you have more than one *ben*? What are *benmey*?
Surely we already know the answer to that: *cha' ben* means /two years ago,/ so *cha' benmey* also means /two years ago./ Multiple *benmey* means exactly the same thing as singular *ben*. So I see no grammatical reason why we can't speak of *ben law'*. *wa' ben, cha' ben, ben law'*/one year ago, two years ago, many years ago./
As for the original question, I'm not sure I see any significant difference between *SaD law' ben* and *SaD ben law'.* I think I'd go for the former, since it makes more sense to me to speak of years ago counting in the many thousands, rather than having many thousand-years-agos.
On 12/6/2016 11:46 AM, mayqel qunenoS wrote:
Andre Muller: > I might also accept {ben law'} as many years > ago, although I'm not sure it works well.
I remember voragh once writing: {ben law'qu'} has been used many times on this list to indicate "once upon a time".
Now, as far as the three possible choices I wrote are concerned, I think that they are all valid with the meaning only slightly changing from one to the other:
{SaD DIS ret law'} = many (thousands of years ago)
{SaD DIS law' ret} = (many thousands of years) ago
{SaD law' DIS ret} = (many thousands) of years ago
If the above analysis is correct, then perhaps this all comes down to personal preference.
qunnoH jan puqloD ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
On 6 Dec 2016 6:32 pm, "André Müller" <esperantist@gmail.com <mailto:esperantist@gmail.com>> wrote:
Don't forget that "years ago" is {ben}, so you can either say: 1) {SaD DIS law' ret} = many millennia ago, or 2) {SaD law' ben} = many thousand years ago. And these essentially mean the same.
I might also accept {ben law'} as many years ago, although I'm not sure it works well.
- André
2016-12-06 16:01 GMT+01:00 mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>>:
In order to indicate "many millenia ago", which is the correct choice ?
{SaD DIS ret law'}, {SaD DIS law' ret} or {SaD law' DIS ret} ?
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 6 December 2016 at 18:25, André Müller <esperantist@gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if {DIS ret} is possible as a kind of synonym of {ben}. I wouldn't use it. But it might not be strictly wrong.
{cha' vatlh DIS ret} is correct Klingon for "two centuries ago". See HolQeD 8:3. http://klingonska.org/canon/1999-09-holqed-08-3.txt <<With longer time periods, such as a century ({vatlh DIS poH}), millennium ({SaD DIS poH}), or a period of 10,000 years ("myriad," perhaps) ({netlh DIS poH}), the words {ret} or {pIq} may be used in place of {poH}, e.g., {cha' vatlh DIS poH} <two centuries>, but {cha' vatlh DIS ret} <two centuries ago>. The phrase {cha' vatlh ben} would mean "200 years ago." The choice of construction depends on what is being emphasized: in this case, the total number of centuries (two) or the total number of years (200).>> -- De'vID
participants (4)
-
André Müller -
De'vID -
mayqel qunenoS -
SuStel