tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 08 22:24:05 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: nom ghel, nom jang

sangqar ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: nom ghel, nom jang
• Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:13:41 -0700
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• Priority: normal

> > I *did* mean {-taH}.  The process of acquiring a native/first language
> > takes years.  It is an ongoing, continuing process.  A child goes through
> > several phases - single-word utterances, holphrastic utterances, and so
> > on.  It really is an ongoing process.  And {-taH} here is better than
> > {-lI'} becuase the child isn't *trying* to learn the language; it just
> > happens.
> 
> -lI' doesn't imply intent.  It implies that there is a known ending point.

Or a known goal.  A child has no goal at all, much less a known one.  As I said, acquisition 
just happens.  If the child were trying to learn the language (like a second-language learner 
is), then {-lI'} might be appropriate.

tlhIngan Hol vIghojlI' - There is a known goal (and presumably progress is being made 
toward that goal)

Hol wa'DIch ghojtaH puq - There is no known goal, the learning is just happening.

Unlike -taH, however, -lI' implies that the activity has a known goal or a definite stopping point 
(TKD 4.2.7 [p 43])

And I think that for sentient subjects, having a known goal implies intent, although I agree 
that the intent is not what makes {-lI'} appropriate.

> DloraH

-Sangqar

• References:
  • Re: nom ghel, nom jang
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: nom ghel, nom jang
• Next by Date: Re: *map* vImugh 'e' vInID
• Prev by thread: Re: nom ghel, nom jang
• Next by thread: "reality"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level