tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 05 09:30:58 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tuQaHlaH'a' ?
bIjatlhtaHvIS batlh DaDel
From: "Will Martin" <[email protected]>
> Hmmm. I like that. qechvam vIqelpu'be' 'ach DaH vIqelchoH 'ej vIqeltaH.
I've
> been thinking that {ja'chuq} carried all the speech connotations
necessary,
> such that {qel} could carry the point of focus of the discussion, but
{Del}
> works just as well for that, plus it makes it clear that the idea is being
> spoken as a description and not merely thought in background. After all,
> maja'chuqtaHvIS muD Dotlh vIDellaH 'uQ vIqeltaHvIS. I can, in the back of
my
> mind, consider what I'm going to have for dinner while discussing the
> weather with you.
toH! This might be what's bugging me! /qel/ is "thought in the
background," as you say, but not necessarily actually spoken. Your
subordinate clause, however, /'uQ vIqeltaHvIS/, seems to jibe perfectly with
my expectations of /qel/. /qel/ always seemed to me to be a thought
process. While saying /maja'chuq batlh wIqeltaHvIS/ would lead one to
expect that honor was indeed being discussed, as it's the only thing stated
as being on one's mind, it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that. It's implied,
rather like my /batlh'e' maja'chuq/ suggestion.
And on the other hand, choosing a more . . . ahem . . . descriptive term
like /Del/ might be even better than either of those two alternatives.
SuStel
Stardate 1343.3