tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 28 09:06:55 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIchegh: marqem
According to [email protected]:
>
...
> And now over to English for a problem that I know has been raised
> before (I don't remember whether in tlhIngan-Hol or in HolQed),
> but I don't remember any resolution: the ambiguity of "wej". The
> last bit above is meant to mean "but we don't make Klingon systems
> yet", but can equally well be understood as meaning "but we make
> three Klingon systems". (As I recall, the question was raised
> with the sentence "wej vIlegh": VERY bad if said by a sentry
> watching for the enemy, and misunderstood!) Surely the language
> can't tolerate such ambiguity. How can it handle it?
Veeeeeerrrrrry carefully.
Notice that the same problem exists if you state the explicit
noun: wej jagh vIlegh.
I don't see the enemy yet. I see three enemies.
That's a tough one. There is no solid answer. If I saw three
enemies, I might tend to say, {DaH wej jagh vIlegh}, but we
can't say for certain that two adverbials can't begin a
sentence, so this could still mean, "I now do not yet see the
enemy."
I think you have to look back at the question and stick to
simpler answers:
jagh Dalegh'a'?
HIja'. jagh vIlegh! wej jagh vIlegh.
ghobe'. pagh jagh vIlegh.
This may seem somewhat chatty, but it might save your skin. If
you can see the one asking the question, it is also helpful to
nod "yes" and hold up three fingers or shake your head "no"
while responding to the question.
If you are asking the question, you might more clearly ask:
jagh 'ar Dalegh?
wej.
pagh.
> - tlhIngan veQbeq la'Hom marqem
> Heghbej ghIHmoHwI'pu'!
>
> Mark A. Mandel
> Dragon Systems, Inc. : speech recognition : +1 617 965-5200
> 320 Nevada St. : Newton, Mass. 02160, USA : [email protected]
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |