tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 01 10:21:28 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:-bogh again
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 21:31:19 -0700
>From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
>At 01:11 PM 9/7/96 -0700, Laurel Beckley wrote:
>>HoH qettaHbogh loD 'e' vIleghpu'.
>>
>>In my original post, I left out the 'e' in the third sentence, which is
>>supposed to be: I saw the man who is running kill him. Was this attempt
>>better?
> yaS HoHlu'bogh bIleghpu'
>Likewise, this has to be "I saw the officer who someone kills"
Not quite; it would have to be "Daleghpu'"
> ?yaS HoHpu'bogh qamma' bIlegh?
>The ?s are to show that this is not grammatically correct.
It isn't grammatically correct because you have "*qamma'" instead of
"qama'" and "bIlegh" instead of "Dalegh". Otherwise it's okay, just
ambiguous.
>Okay, now... which is this? "I saw the prisoner who killed the officer" or
>is it "I saw the officer who the prisoner killed"?
>We have no way of knowing, unless one of them is "flagged" with some sort of
>suffix. Fortuantely, we HAVE a suffix for this: -'e', as you noticed.
True, but you don't HAVE to. Context may suffice to disambiguate (even in
this sentence. If in the discussion we're having it's known I saw a
prisoner, and you want to know which one I saw, it's clear what I'm
referrring to). We have canon: Hov ghajbe'bogh ram rur pegh ghajbe'bogh
jaj.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMlFTDMppGeTJXWZ9AQEakAMAop1ZoFBkLrLWYggVC5PECXYXdSnRnFFx
fOpKzNWyI5N7jJ87Q3of6+ctLd6ZNZWUeiNQgd2fPEORm5C+YfYJuWjo/H38+iHM
zDHZDcjdZ/jrhPQBAcDR0m3OjBTyE5RV
=usio
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----