tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 15 12:33:17 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ba'
From: <[email protected]>
> > > > Klingon, if /ba'/ means occupying the chair, what's the difference
> > > > between /ba'/ and /ba'taH/?
> > >
> > > > None that I can see.
> > >
> > > /-taH/ emphasizes the continuation, telling the reader it is not
> > /-lI'/.
> >
> > Umm, no, the purpose of /-taH/ is not to say it's not /-lI'/.
>
> I know I'm not good at explaining my thoughts, and its partially due to
the
> fact that I'm sometimes too brief. But I felt like screeming some four
letter
> words.
>
> I am not saying that -taH says its not -lI'.
I'm sorry if I've upset you; that was not my intention. It certainly LOOKS
like that's what you said and meant. I don't see how else to read your
statement.
> > Personally, I don't think /ba'/ necessarily means continuous occupation
of a
> > chair, couch, etc. I think it means occupation of a chair, etc., for an
> > unspecified amount of time, maybe an instant, maybe a day, whatever.
>
> You just gave the same %^$^ definition I gave a couple messages back,
except I
> didn't bother to specify that the time is unspecified. Of course this
verb
> doesn't include the time; what verb does?
But that non-specificity was the whole point of what I'm talking about.
What you said (or what it very much looked like you said) was that /ba'/
means a continuous sitting. That it meant "sit" only, as opposed to
including "sit down." My was simply wondering whether it might also mean
"sit down." I wasn't challenging you specifically, I was wondering out loud
to the list.
> > /ba'taH/ means said occupation for a period that is expressly
continuous --
> > it's definitely not instantaneous, and the continuous nature of the
> > sitting is important.
>
> Well, &^%*, you just answered your own question!
I am speculating and giving my opinion on the matter; I don't think this has
an absolute answer at this time.
> We're arguing on the same side of the issue. We're both saying the same
thing.
I believe I was discussing a more subtle point than you were aware of. I
could be wrong; perhaps I've misunderstood you.
SuStel
Stardate 2288.0