tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 18 12:25:00 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: latlh latlhmey joq
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 08:06:16 -0800
>From: "eric d. zay" <[email protected]>
>
>>ghItlh ghunchu'wI
>
>> I don't like trying to use {latlh} to say "another [something]".
>> That would make it act like an adjectival verb, and it probably
>> would have to follow the noun.
>
>I might be reaching a little here, but does this mean that *tlhInganpu'
>latlh* or *tlhInganpu' latlhpu' * would be acceptable for "Other Klingons?"
This is back at the problem we had for "Hoch". There was disagreement:
some felt that "Hoch" should follow the noun it was universalizing, and
some felt it should go in front. (the former [like me] basing it on a
noun-noun type of structure, "all of the Klingons" = "the Klingons' all" =
"tlhInganpu' Hoch". The latter considering it to act more like a number).
Turned out the latter group was correct, and Hoch comes before. Does latlh
behave the same? Differently? We don't know.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMrhTFsppGeTJXWZ9AQGghwL+I/TT2hznlz+Cmb56fORRc7/j/Y1gav/K
RPpBYOeN5BQTRDMdS2roe7Rgg9sCC4Ujq63U5pXa81ohKcgnCJ+e5EZpUS6iyY5X
eEbjmVXIm5QWxkd3nCb+6205iHmwka7b
=5BNH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----