tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 27 09:32:13 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }}} KLBC: wamwI'
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }}} KLBC: wamwI'
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 95 13:32:13 METDST
>
> Now you're getting the idea! These phrases are much less ambiguous.
> Perhaps they could add some spice to the story. Instead of blandly saying
> "he prepared his weapons", you might say {betleHDaj jejmoH wamwI' 'ej
> Qeychu' qoghmey 'e' tob ghaH}. Since you felt the need to explain to us
> what you meant by "ready" in English, I believe it is reasonable to explain
> it in {tlhIngan Hol} as well.
>
you're probably right. I wanted to be short,
because I didn't really want to write the story
for purposes other than practicing tlhIngan Hol.
I really haven't the faintest idea about what
a hunter might do in order to prepare his weapons
for hunting... I'll try anyway.
> > ...so V-laH can (!) mean
> > 'subject can be verbed' or 'subject can verb',
> > right?
>
> Wrong. {lo'laH} might mean "[subject] can use [object]" or "[subject] is
> useful", but so far as I can tell, this is a unique irregularity. In other
how about the combination of -qang and -moH then?
why is this not to be regarded as a 'unique irregularity'?
why not use it in all other cases except as on p.45
to mean 'be willing to cause s.o. to do s.th.'?
> cases, {V-laH} means "[subject] can V [object]" only. It's likely that the
> irregular "is useful" meaning appears because one cannot simultaneously use
> {-lu} and {-laH} to mean "one can V [object]" or "[object] can be V'd".
> The otherwise unused {net} is useful in this case.
>
I really don't see why lu' should be different from
other verbs in this respect.
Marc 'Dochlangan'
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------