tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 13 08:45:55 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998 20:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ja' charghwI':
> >> Thomas 'oH pongwIj'e'.
> >> My name is Thomas.
> >
> >This is fine. Some of us tend to use asterisks to mark things we
> >don't want someone foolishly trying to look up, though in this
> >case it is obvious enough that should not be a problem. You
> >might have seen this written as:
> >
> >*Thomas* 'oH pongwIj'e'.
>
> "Some of us" :-) also have a teensy bit of a problem with {'oH} being
> used this way. Even though "Alan" is my name, I don't think it can be
> turned around to say my name is an "Alan", which is how I interpret the
> {"Alan" 'oH pongwIj'e'} phrasing. I much prefer it in the other order:
> {pongwIj 'oH "Alan"-'e'}
I've heard people say both, "My name is Alan," and "Alan is my
name." Meanwhile, adding the indefinite article as you have done
in "My name is an 'Alan'," is no different from adding it to the
other word order forming: "An 'Alan' is my name."
I certainly accept your argument to remind people which is
subject and which is object, but in this instance, the term "my
name" and "Alan" are interchangeable. I can imagine two people
in a noisy room:
"What is your name?"
"Alan is my name."
"Your name is what?"
"My name is Alan."
None of this sounds wrong to me. Similarly, neither {pongwIj 'oH
*Alan*'e'} and {*Alan* 'oH pongwIj'e'} sound wrong.
It's not like I want to cause a flame war or launch a major
protest. I just want it to be clear that while *SOME* of us
think this is a big deal, this new person should recognize that
*SOME* of us don't.
> >> jIghIQpa', Do'Ha' jabbI'IDghomvam vImejnISpu'.
> >> Unfortunately I needed to leave this newsgroup before I took a vacation.
> >
> >There's a little controversy as to whether {mej} can take an
> >object. The definition gloss "leave, depart" doesn't really
> >sound like it can, and there are no examples of Okrand using it
> >with an object. I know he used it in TKW on page 79, but I can't
> >look that up right now, and I do know that I noted it as an
> >intransitive useage.
>
> bImejDI' reH betleHlIj yItlhap -- never leave without your bat'telh.
qeSna' Danobta'.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI' 'utlh