tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 15 09:34:00 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SopDaq
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: SopDaq
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:33:53 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from Ivan ADerzhanski on Sat, 12 Apr 1997 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
>
>Kenneth Traft wrote:
>> Then again there are probably many words we don't know yet
>> and qa' and nI or teb have other meaning that go together.
>
>Possibly, but that doesn't mean that {nIteb} is analysable. No one
>said that all Klingon morphemes are monosyllabic (although most are).
Indeed. "Understand" is clearly derived from under+stand, but its meaning
has nothing to do with it (at least, not that is apparent anymore). And we
can understand a language, overlook a flower, overtake a racer, but we
can't understand the ceiling or oversit the floor. What's more, "delight"
*looks* like it's de- + light, but it has nothing to do with making
something less light, and what's more *NEVER* had anything to do with that
(understand may once have had to do with standing under, but delight never
had anything to do with making darkness). It actually is from a respelling
of "delite" under the mistaken impression that it was related to "light."
English is not analyzable by the "logic" Ken seems to be trying to use; how
can we assume that Klingon is? Langauges simply are not reliably logical.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBM1OtzMppGeTJXWZ9AQEUHQL9HuThs4EYnuphr4ZlN/iDkQU4jScO3snr
kfLfsQ4uWfZsiDK9csLYgX73WXydeDvHKy7ZtH277EdLgPu553ilDHEhXDOPueOO
/+qA79JzEvxY8ejHTXkyw0N61eXltAiT
=ECP9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----