tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 03 20:43:37 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Order of 'oH + -'e'
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: Order of 'oH + -'e'
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 22:47:41 -0500
Krenath writes:
>It seems that the majority of "X is Y" equivalency statements actually do
>not indicate complete equivalency, but that X is a part or subset of Y. for
>example, the statement "A square is a rectangle" which is true, but not
>necessarily true in reverse order.
That's how I like to think of it too... but some of the examples we have
of using {nuq} work better if it really does indicate equivalency.
>if {puqpu' chaH qama'pu''e'} means "the children are prisoners", then
> {qama'pu' chaH puqpu''e'} ought to mean "the prisoners are children".
>tlhIngan Hol appears to follow the same general word order English does for
>stating such sentences...
Try again -- you have these backwards. See the examples on TKD page 68.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj