tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 14 08:37:32 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhIngan vIDalaw'
- From: TPO <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: tlhIngan vIDalaw'
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:37:19 -0500
>If <qI'> was meant to mean ONLY "sign a treaty", why would it not have been
>glossed "sign a treaty" instead of "sign (a treaty)"? I believe (a treaty)
>is there to differentiate it from another English verb "sign" which might
>have been clarified (a letter) or (communicate with hands). To <qI'> is
>clearly to affix one's name to a document or other item to indicate
>agreement with the document's purpose. I can <qI'> a check or a contract, I
>am sure. To affix one's name to a letter, where the signature merely
>identifies the writer, is not <qI'> - at least that's MY interpretation.
>
>I can say <jIloStaH> or <qaloStaH> or <taDchoH ghe''or 'e' vIloStaH> - in
>all 3 I must be waiting (for) something. I left it unsaid in the first one,
>but to wait implies a thing to be waited for. In these situations,
>intransitive use and transitive use are OK in my book.
>
>Qermaq
I agree with you, but I included the ( ) in the meaning because some of the
people that insisted they were part of it were grammarians.
Hmmm... let's subscribe MO to this list so he can see where we need help. hehe
DloraH