tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 03 12:00:24 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }}} KLBC: wamwI'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }}} KLBC: wamwI'
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 12:00:24 -0400 (EDT)
According to Alan Anderson:
...
> {HIq tlhutlh yaS} "The officer drinks the liquor." maj.
> {??? vItlhutlhmoH} "I cause the officer to drink the liquor." jor jay'!
> ...
> {HIq tlhutlh yaS 'e' vIqaSmoH} works perfectly by sidestepping the whole
> "transitive verb with {-moH}" issue.
Also, since you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make
him drink, and Klingons have similar tendencies, I'd go more
with:
tlhutlhmeH yaS, ghaHvaD HIq vInob 'ej yItlhutlh vIra'.
> >Given that {lo'moHlaH} could ONLY mean, "cause to be valuable",
...
> You're right, {lo'moHlaH} COULD mean "cause to be valuable." The
> two-object problem keeps us from translating it as "cause to be able to
> use", but that doesn't mean it MUST have a valid translation.
But if someone says it, you can figure they were trying to say
something and only one of the possible interpretations is valid.
> I'm probably
> relying far too much on the suffix order, but...
YOu could end it there. The suffix order is fixed. We can't
change it. When a root and suffix combination gets a different
definition, that new word can still receive suffixes which come
between the suffix and the verb. It's that simple.
> I have a very difficult time
> accepting "out-of-order" translations. Meanwhile, {lo'laH 'oH 'e' qaSmoH
> ghaH} is available. It trades decreased brevity for increased clarity.
I don't really see this as clearer. It has the same ambiguity
resolved the same way. No object means "be valuable" instead of
"able to use".
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |