tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 23:06:56 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: qatlh vay' vInuQ :)
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2003, DloraH wrote:
> > > Destroying. "If" does not indicate an action is occurring or will
occur
> > > in the future. I think any English teacher would agree with me on
this
> > > one. If you wanted to refer to the act of thinking, the English would
> > > more likely be something like "It would be a rare occurrence *for*
mobs to
> > > think." Or the event would be cast into a subject, "A mob that can
think
> > > is a rare occurrence." I don't think the English is nearly as unclear
as
> > > the Klingon.
> >
> > "A mob that can think is a rare occurrence" implies that there are
indeed
> > mobs out there that can think, and that it is simply rare. Using [if]
makes
> > it a hypothetical situation, "If a mob that could think did possibly
exist,
> > even tho they exist (in this hypothetical situation) it would be a rare
> > occurrence."
>
> You're implying that it's ambiguous, but your recast of the English does
> not disambiguate the issue, nor does it make your point clear. Are you
> saying that you think it's ambiguous, or that it definitely must relate to
> the subordinate clause?
>
> If you were party to that conversation in real life, what would have been
> your interpretation of what "it" was?
"it"? This sub-discussion here was about the "If". You wanted to get rid
of the "If".
The "it" IS ambiguous, in both languages, that's why this discussion
started.
...And I WAS party to that conversation in real life; that's how we got to
this discussion. Over e-mail the conversation just covers more time. You
said when there is something ambiguous in a conversation you ask a question,
they give more info, and the conversation continues. That's what we did;
it's just taking longer this way. This whole thread could have happened,
just as it did, in person, face to face; the same misunderstanding, etc; it
just would have lasted only a couple minutes.
DloraH