tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 20 06:06:59 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

Terrence Donnelly ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

--- Alan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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".
> 

Right. {maQumchuq} 'we communicate reciprocally/
together"

> > 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).
> 

OK

> >>      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 think either one works. Or avoid that issue and
use {'oHbej} instead.
 
> > 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.
>

Not really. {pIch} is an abstract thing, but it's
still a thing.  I don't think a situation is a thing. 

> -- ghunchu'wI'
> 
> 
> 

-- ter'eS

Back to archive top level