tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 18 08:34:01 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: thursday:today




On Tue, 18 Jun 1996 07:01:12 -0700 "Dr. Lawrence M. 
Schoen" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Will wrote:
> > 
> > jIQoch. lugh ~mark. bIQaghpu'. <ghaH> poQbe'lu', 'ach 
> > <ghaH'e'> poQbe'bejlu'.
> 
> 
> But which part do you disagree with?
> 
> I think we're all in agreement that <ghaH> wasn't "required" at all, though I 
> hope we're also all in agreement that it helps disambiguate this sentence from 
> the larger context of the post as a whole, likewise the use of -'e' for 
> topicalization.  Or is this the part that you believe I am mistaken about?

HIja'. qatlh nuvvam DabuS? potlh lut. nuv vISaHbe'.

> One area which I think has received very little attention (for obvious reasons) 
> is that any language, not simply Klingon, can and should be analyzed at several 
> levels.  We've become pretty good at looking at Klingon at the "word" level, and
> indeed, most of what we do is at that level.  We're getting better understanding
> the language at the "sentence" or "phrase" level, and as we gather more 
> canonical sentences from sources like THE KLINGON WAY this should only improve. 
> But language also needs to be studied at a still larger level, the level of 
> extended discourse.  How do the sentence fit together, issues like cohesion and 
> reference, maintaining topic between conversants, and a general appreciation for
> context at a higher level.

jIQochbe'. 'ach qatlh nuv DabuS?
 
> I'm not trying to "bullshit" my way out of a corner, but I am asking you to look
> at the whole picture.  

I'll admit that I didn't see the whole picture because 
there have been so many posts with so little of interest to 
me (not trying to sound arrogant, I'm being honest) that 
I've gotten fed up with wading through them. I pile them 
aside in a directory I have not gotten to yet and randomly 
miss things which then get read into my stream of daily 
messages. I randomly hit that post and missed the one it 
came from. I hope to get to it later, but I'm on the verge 
of, for the first time in five years, deleting a pile of 
messages without reading them. 
 
> Of course, I still could be mistaken.  ;)

chaq qarqu' qechvam.
 
> Lawrence
> 
charghwI'




Back to archive top level