tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 10 19:23:36 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Re: mach 'ach Hach
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Re: mach 'ach Hach
- Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 17:23:42 -0400
From: Qov <[email protected]>
>At 15:33 98-05-08 -0700, HovqIj wrote:
>
>}> situation. Thus, if someone wants to translate this poem,
>}> the mission is obviously difficult. If someone wants to translate this
>}> poem, (s)he must also consider the forcefully spoken syllables (=word
>}> sections) and the un-forcefully (can I use {pe'vIlHa'}?)
>
>Not until we see it in canon.
For some reason, I don't see any problem with experimenting with {-Ha'} on
adverbials. Though many constructions are unclarified, {-Ha'} is one of the
few constructions which is *explicitly unclarified* (as opposed to something
which seems to follow through a certain interpretation of the rules, but
which has never been addressed by Okrand (e.g. questions as objects).
Besides, the meaning of {pe'vIlHa'} is clear to me.
>}> <jImuS 'ej jImuSHa'. <qatlh?> chaq bIghel.
>
>I would have written chaq bIghel <qatlh>, because the way to write speech
>(lets assume ghel is a verb of saying, it might not be) is to put the
>attributed or quoted speech immediately before ot immediately after the
verb
>of saying. We don't know anything about intervening adverbs.
The verb of saying rules state that you put the two *sentences* together:
the sentence containing the verb of saying, and the other sentence, the
quotation. Given that, the two appropriate ways of saying this are
<qatlh?> chaq bIghel.
chaq bIghel <qatlh?>.
Don't put the quotation between {chaq} and {bIghel}, because that would be
splicing one sentence into another, which is not what you're supposed to do.
SuStel
Stardate 98357.0