tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 29 19:45:24 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC naDev jIH vItu'lu'
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC naDev jIH vItu'lu'
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:48:08 -0500
wovwI' writes:
>& > chaq So'egh je So'wI' vIja'laH.
>I intended to say, "I could say that a cloaking device also
>hides itself," arguing that {So'wI'} isn't absolute evidence for the
>transitivity of the verb, e.g. a glider glides, and the person in
>the glider glides, but the glider doesn't glide him. So maybe we
>should say {Duj So'moH So'wI}, and allow the lurkers to say jISo'qa'.
Good point. I dislike the implication that {So'} might have both the
intransitive *and* causative meanings, though.
>pIm'a' {So''egh je So'wI'} {vIHbe' je ghew} je?
pImchu'be'. raplaw'.
'ach <-be'> lo'mo' cha'DIch, loQ pIm.
>Sometimes tlhIngan Hol seems like trapdoor code: perfect sense to the
>person who wrote it but impossible to extract the meaning again.
pe'vIl Dajatlhchugh, not qay'. pujchugh mu'meylIj, rut Dayajlu'chu'be'.
Speak boldly, and you will not have this problem! Waffle with the
words "maybe" and "could" and your meaning will suffer.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj