tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 20 03:40:26 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

I seem to be particularly contrarian today.

ja' ter'eS:
> I do think you should use {-chuq}: {maQumchuqlaHbe'}.

I don't.  {Qum} is "communicate", not "communicate with".

> I don't have a good feeling about using {vItu'} to
> mean "it appears to me". I always think of {tu'} as
> referring to an actual act of finding or discovering.

On the other hand, the first example of its use is {Qu'vaD lI' net  
tu'bej} "You will find it useful [for the mission]" (Valkris to Kruge  
in ST3).

>>      QumHa'ghach naQ 'oH ghu''e' naDev wItu'taHbogh
>
> I don't understand why {naQ} is there.

I think I understand why it's there, but I also think it's the wrong  
tool for the job.  Instead of "unbroken miscommunication", how about  
{QumHa'ghach'a'} or {QumHa'chu'ghach} instead?

> {QumHa'ghach ghu'na' 'oH naDev qaStaHbogh ghu''e'}
> "A definite situation of miscommunication is the
> situation occuring here."

I think {-na'} is misplaced.  You don't want to express your  
certainty that you're referring to a "situation", do you?  It would  
better fit on {QumHa'ghachna'} -- you're talking about  
miscommunication, and that's definitely what it is.

> I wouldn't use {ghaj} for "having a situation", though.
> I think you can only have things, not events.

{pIch vIghajbe'} "It's not my fault" is a contrary example.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level