tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 09 05:42:51 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: DIS chu' Quch
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: DIS chu' Quch
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 21:27:06 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, January 08, 1998 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: DIS chu' Quch
>ja'pu' charghwI':
>>...Can a year BE happy? Is it sentient?
>
>ja' SuStel:
>>And we just don't know. KGT p. 105 has a pretty clear implication that
>>{pa'vamDaq jIbIr} means that the speaker is uncomfortable with the
>>temperature being as low as it is.
>I think you need to read that passage in KGT again:
I have, and you are correct. However, it still doesn't tell us what the
proper subject of {Quch} must be. Again, I believe as you do that a being
with emotional states must be the subject of {Quch}, but my belief is not
conclusive. With English "happy," for example, the thing which is happy
need not be a being.
Let's look at it another way. I occasionally see people use {'eq} and {paS}
to refer to things like {'eqtaHvIS po} for "while the morning was early,"
and many grammarians seem to have no problem with this. This meaning of
{'eq} would mean something like "the subject, a period of time, is in its
initial stage." However, canon from CK gives us {'eq} "She is early," which
shows us that {'eq} means something closer to "be ahead of schedule," and
that a proper subject for it is something which has some flexibility in its
schedule, like a person. This is basically the same problem: can a morning
be early? Can a year be happy?
My point through all of this: I'm firmly convinced that a morning cannot be
early, and a year cannot be happy, but my quick treatment of the matter
(before charghwI''s objections) was due to getting at the grammar, writing
off the vocabulary as "you COULD be right, though I don't think so, but if
you are . . ."
SuStel
Stardate 98023.6