tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 17 11:20:31 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'aH tIQ
> The event is not "if a mob can
> > > > think". In that case, it would be "QublaH ghom'a'. vaj qubbej
> > > > wanI'vetlh" "Mobs can think. Then that event is rare."
> >
> > Now THAT sounds clunky to me. If you start out by saying "mobs can think"
> > then it sounds like you are making a blanket statement that mobs are in
> > fact able to think. If so, then why is the event rare?
>
>That's exactly my point. The two-sentence version IS klunky
So your point is that your way of saying it...is clunky?
>, but it's
>effectively identical to what you had written.\
No it's not what I had written.
>So, first off, your intent truly was to say that it was rare for *mobs to
>think*, right? Therefore, DloraH's impression that /wanI'vetlh/ referred
>to the looting was incorrect... Correct?
The only event in the sentence is the act of the crowd thinking. So that
is what /wanI'/ was referring too. If I had meant looting, I would have
said looting. I am truly bewildered by the controversy this sentence has
generated. Especially considering that as far as I can tell it containes
no errors. /wanI'/ is a noun. /vetlh/ is a noun suffix. Therefore
/wanI'vetlh/ is perfectly acceptable. There are many ways to phrase the
idea. If you don't like the way I wrote it then you are free to phrase
another way.
SuSvaj
SuSvaj