tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 22 15:36:52 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Probability

David Trimboli ([email protected])

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Probability
• Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:36:03 -0400
• References: <[email protected]>

From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>

> ghItlhpu' SuStel:
>
> >/-meH/ has been used rather loosely of late.  Let's not forget that it's
a
> >*purpose* suffix.  Your certainty does not have the purpose of snowing,
so
> >/peDmeH DIch/ isn't a good phrase.
>
> teH. I'm not quite sure about {peDmeH DuH} either. But at the moment,
either
> that or {peDchoHghach DuH} is about as close as I can get. Other than
that,
> I'm fresh out of ideas. Do you have any suggestions?


/peDmeH DuH/ has the same problem: the possibility doesn't have the purpose
of snowing.  /peDchoHghach DuH/ works, though it strikes me as a word made
up to satisfy grammar requirements, rather than because it's what you
wanted.

I've already given my answer.  We don't have a known grammatical way to say
it, but the shorthandish /ghaytan peD: SochmaH vagh vatlhvI'/ works for me.

File this one along with Klingon subjunctive . . . .

SuStel
Stardate 4309.2

• References:
  • Re: Probability
    • From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Headless relatives and {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}
• Next by Date: Re: QIpwI' jIHmo', QaH vIpoQ...
• Previous by thread: Re: Probability
• Next by thread: Re: Probability
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level