tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 08 18:03:51 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: In Which Qov Fixes Foolish Mistakes Made By Lt. Cdr. Barrows
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: In Which Qov Fixes Foolish Mistakes Made By Lt. Cdr. Barrows
- Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 18:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
---David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
> >---"Lt. Cdr. Sarah Barrows" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Qov wrote:
> >> >---"Lt. Cdr. Sarah Barrows" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >'IH maS. pem Hov wov law' maS wov puS, vaj maS wIbejlaH.
> >> qaQochbe'chu'. maS vIbejDI', jIDoghchoH. 'e' vIjatlhpu''a'? :)
> >
> >It's not necessarily true that you may say ?/qaQochbe'/ for "I agree
> >with you" The person agreed with isn't the object of the verb, the
> >way the definition is given. If /Qochbe'/ said "agree, agree with
> >(someone)," then you'd know you could do it. FOr now I treat /Qoch/
> >like /Qong/ and say that if it has an object, I don't know what it
is.
> >It could be the topic agreed on, for example.
>
> Ah, but we're dealing with the prefix trick again, aren't we? You
can say
> {qajatlh} even though the direct object of {jatlh} is not the person
you
> agree with.
I thought about that, but I decided I would gripe about /SoHvaD
jIQoch/, too, so it was irrelevant here.
> Now perhaps some people are starting to see why I didn't like the
> prefix trick before it was "canonized." The potential for abuse and
> vagueness is very high.
I agree -- head shake :) -- that there are a lot of /SoHvaD jI-X/
cases that I would accept while rejecting their /qa-X/ equivalents-qoq.
==
Qov - Beginners' Grammarian
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com