tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 14 12:56:39 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jItlhob'egh 'ej qatlhob je
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jItlhob'egh 'ej qatlhob je
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:56:55 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 05:40:11 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' Qermaq:
> >ngem botlhDaq pumchugh Sor tInqu' 'ej Sor QoymeH Sumbe'chugh vay', chuS'a'?
Okrand just answered me recently about this use of {-meH} and he
said it was not a good idea. It sounds like someone had the goal
of hearing and in order to accomplish that goal, they were not
near. That is not what you meant. This would be better cast as:
ngem botlhDaq pumchugh Sor tInqu' 'ej Hopmo' Hoch QoylaH pagh,
chuS'a'?
> chuSbe' 'e' vIchov 'ej vuDwIjvaD ngaq vImuchlaH.
>
> >chaq teS mupbe'chugh *vibration*mey, chuSbe'. 'ach chaq chuSlaHmo'
> >*vibration*mey tIn, chuS. chaq chuSmeH QoynISbe'lu'.
Again, this sounds like you are saying that with intentions of
accomplishing the goal of being noisy, one must not be heard.
This does not make sense.
chaq chuSwI' Qoy' pagh 'ach chuSbej.
> 'eymeH lut laDnISlu'law'.
jIQochbej. tIvlu'DI' 'ey lut. tIvlu'pu'DI' 'eytaH. chaq not
tIvlu'qa' 'ach toblu'ta' 'eytaH.
> pe'meH 'etlh yannISlu'law'.
jIQochbej. 'etlhDaq pumchugh qoH, 'etlhvam yantaHvIS pagh, qoH
pe' 'etlhvam.
> wIbmeH Soj mumnISlu'bej ja'chu' KGT.
Daqna' yI'ang!
> mumwI' potlh law' Soj Hap potlh puS.
jIQochqa'. latlh Hutlhchugh wa' vaj qaSbe' wIbchoHghach.
> vaj chuSmeH pumbogh Sor QoynISlu' 'e' vIHar.
bIjatlhchu'. I do believe this is an extention of Okrand's
explanation I'm not immediately comfortable with. Yes, for
flavor, he explains that the verbs defined as "to be of a
particular flavor" actually refers to the experience of the
observer and not any inherant property of the food, but this may
simply not be true of sound. Different senses may very well be
differently conceptualized.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'