tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 20 15:07:58 1998

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: To-Be or not To-Be that "is" the fallacious question

• From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: To-Be or not To-Be that "is" the fallacious question
• Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 18:07:49 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
• Priority: NORMAL

On Mon, 19 Oct 1998 17:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Bryan Potratz 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The more I look at tlhIngan-Hol the more I lean toward the opinion that we
> should avoid the inherent problems of "to-be" all together. (I believe MO
> tried not to use it until Undiscovered Country...)
> 
> See E'/General Semantics - fallacy of Identity and Predication
> 
> ja' charghwI'  (with IGS/E' edits...)
> 
> "My name *may be classified as* a verb." As "Will" I can say that.

etc.

> "My name is..." not anything other than a sonic or written representation of
> the concept of the identity of my person.  So we can invent 'em as we will,
> with no (or few anyway) grammatical constraints... {{;-)
> 
> Therefore - "I call myself Allan."

So, why bother having {pong} as a noun?

> Qapla'
> 
> Bryan Potratz - lomqa'
> mailto:[email protected]
> http://barney.gonzaga.edu/~bpotratz/

charghwI'

• References:
  • To-Be or not To-Be that "is" the fallacious question
    • From: "Bryan Potratz" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: names and "to be" again (was Re: KLBC)
• Next by Date: jItlhIjqa'
• Prev by thread: To-Be or not To-Be that "is" the fallacious question
• Next by thread: change of address
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level