tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 18 11:32:08 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: to' nech, 061-070
At 10:24 2002-04-18 -0400, David Trimboli wrote:
> > K: wej Hoch 'e', 'ach wa' 'ay' neH.
> > Gloss: Not yet all, but just one part.
>nuqjatlh? What's that /'e'/ doing there?
Oops. Supposed to be: {wej Hoch'e', ...}
I'm assuming 1) you can put at least some noun suffixes on {Hoch}, and 2)
that 'e' can be used to get contrastive/emphatic focus.
But ya know, now I think about this even more, I can just as easily get
about the same idea (of incompleteness) across with just one word:
{naQbe'}. Or maybe {wej naQ}.
Hm, once or twice in TKD, I've seen Okrand spell {'e'} as a separate word
even when it's not a pronoun... let's see, page 180, first boldface
sentence, and p68, 4th boldface sentence. But presumably those are just
printer's errors.
> > K: potlh'e' yIghoSlI'!
> > Gloss: Approach the crucial thing.
> > Eno/Schmidt: Move towards the unimportant
>(How'd you go from "unimportant" to "crucial"?)
I have no idea. I think I'd just been working on a bunch of other Dup that
have "important" and for some reason read "unimportant" as "important". I
wonder if there's an antonym for the noun {potlh}. {ramghach}, "triviality"?
--
Sean M. Burke http://www.spinn.net/~sburke/