tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 30 05:48:38 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC (old)- SaQum
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC (old)- SaQum
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 17:43:20 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Mark Nudelman" at Jun 28, 94 4:20 pm
According to Mark Nudelman:
>
...
> But I don't think the original problem is solely due to the negation.
> The original issue revolves around the meaning of -meH. I view
> -meH (perhaps too narrowly) as implying PURPOSE. I would
> agree with ~mark that {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhmeH jIpo'} does
> not mean "I am skilled at speaking Klingon." To me, it says "I am
> skilled in order to speak Klingon"; that is, I am deliberately being
> skilled for the purpose of speaking Klingon. It seems the same
> construct as {tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhmeH nujwIj vIvIHmoH}, where the
> purpose connotation is clearer.
>
> --nachHegh
> [email protected]
Hmm. So far as I am concerned, it is true that I am
deliberately being skilled for the purpose of speaking Klingon.
I don't think that we merely disagree on how to express a
thought. I think we are not beginning with the same thought.
My thought is that the purpose of my skill is to speak Klingon.
I see that as even MORE true than the truth that the purpose of
my moving my mouth is to speak Klingon, since I move my mouth
for many other functions... many NICE functions...
But I digress.
But my skill at speaking Klingon has only ONE purpose, and that
is for me to speak Klingon. In fact, I tend to think that to
say "I am skilled AT speaking Klingon," is an oddly idiomatic
way of expressing this thought in English. "I am skilled in
order to speak Klingon," makes perfect sense to me, though it
is not the typical way it is stated.
charghwI'