tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 19 16:01:09 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: lut tlhaQ 'e' vItul
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: lut tlhaQ 'e' vItul
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 22:51:24 UT
vIng Qov:
> lab SuStel:
> & jatlh jey'el:
>
> & > veng tInDaq, qach jen HurDaq,
> &
> & An Ewok village? In Lothlorien? The Jetsons? We don't have a word
> & for "tall." When you say {jen}, I imagine one of these places, not a
> & tall building.
>
> I don't have this problem. I just see the part of the buiding which
> *is* high and ignore the part underneath it. HuD jen - it's
> the pointy bits at the top I'm interested in, even though the
> mountain itself starts at sea level. quS jen - could be a chair on
> top of a table, could be a chair with especially long legs. nuv jen
> doesn't work for me, though, unless the person is on stilts.
> However, when I see "qach jen HurDaq" I think of someone outside a
> high building on a window washing platform. I'd say "qach jen
> bIngDaq" -- and wait for SuStel to get pedantic: wulthDaq qar'a' SoH?
> Qom qar'a' qach?
I would never say {wutlhDaq qar'a' SoH}. I might say {wutlhDaq SoH qar'a'}.
However, I don't see what your problem is. Why underground? Why an
earthquake? I see {qach jen bIngDaq} and think "Wicket's swinging on a vine
below his house," or "Elroy's on a jet scooter below his house."
> & > pujwI' jIvvaD qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'.
> & > To the ignorant weakling they seem mean and vicious.
> &
> & {qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'}. {-law'} doesn't mean that the *subject* of
> & the sentence isn't sure of the validity of the statement, it means
> & that the *speaker* isn't sure of it. Therefore, {qejlaw' 'ej
> & naSlaw'} means "they were probably mean and vicious."
>
> I hate this one. SuStel's argument *does* follow the literal word of
> TKD, but the examples in TKD are all cases where the speaker and the
> point of view of the sentence are the same. A story in the third
> person isn't necessarily expressing the point of view of the author.
> "The child didn't want to speak to the terrifying policeman so he
> hid in the safety of the park." I don't think the policeman is
> terifying and I know the park isn't safe. I'm writing from the point
> of view of the child.
I happen to agree: if the speaker is TRYING to speak from the point of the
view of the subject, then using {-law'} is fine. But then, you can't go and
use {-vaD} like that. You can say {qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'}, or you can say
{pujwI'vaD qej 'ej naS}, but saying {pujwI'vaD qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'} means that
the SPEAKER is unsure, and having used {-vaD} it's no longer from the point of
view of the weakling.
> SuvwI'pu' legh pujwI' jIv. qejlaw' 'ej naSlaw'
>
> *could* well mean that I the writer of the sentence believe the
> warriors to be mean and vicious, but I argue that it could be
> translated "They seemed mean and vicious," with the time at and
> person to whom they seemed that way being determined by the context.
I absolutely agree, and I'm sorry if I made myself
> & > Hegh qoHpu' neH HaghtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'!
> & > Only fools die when warriors laugh!
>
> lutlIj vItIv.
>
> I don't think SuStel is wrong, just pedantic. But I suspect pedagogy
> and pedantic share a root. Go SuStel. How can one ignore the rules
> if he doesn't know what they are?
And you used to be so nice . . .
I think I'll get on the MSN board and ask Okrand for a word for "sarcasm."
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97467.4