tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jul 04 14:50:13 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SuvwI'bom
- From: "Qermaq" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: SuvwI'bom
- Date: Sat, 4 Jul 1998 17:56:18 -0400
ghItlh ghunchu'wI':
>My preference for the word order of an introduction is not a matter of
>topic. It's a matter of what a "to be" sentence really means.
Who is the President of the United States?
The President of the United States is who?
These two sentences are asking the same thing - I know that someone fits
this description, but who is it?
When one is looking for this type of info, it should not matter what order
we put the particles of the Klingon sentence in. <HoDlI' ghaH nuq'e'?> <nuq
ghaH HoDlI''e'?> - these are synonymous to me. What is the difference? How
is this different than the above English sentences?
Now, if we say "A square is a rectangle" we are speaking of a different
relationship. Before "is" meant "is identical to," while here "is" means
"belongs to the set of." If we are asking about that specific relationship,
then I see how order is important. But without that subset relationship,
order is perhaps unimportant; but: "Clinton is a President of the United
States." "A President of the United States is Clinton." Both are equally
meaningful. Not all Presidents are Bill Clinton, but either order of asking
is correct. Unless Klingon "to be" constructions work totally in a way I am
ignorant of, I really don't understand how order comes into play here.
Yes, if I am something, it is unusual to say "Something is me." But the
meaning is identical. How is Klingon different? And how do we know?
Qermaq