tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 20 13:52:29 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
- From: McArdle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: A Failure to Communicate
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:52:02 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Qc80V27zN7q6V86kJBvrhlc3Pv4jAfzN/BNtugIrMpcX7Yc0wcq5OewW3C3jfgxr1Ro3g+LvoxGNv8dKeAEgcFbq11lQdDszPHpTBI9EXV0wX4B56bgziuy1nwTOkKluCau82nqD5G3zGWmOEISvsLvTYbWaAXe5WLZdv7cbo5Q= ;
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]> wrote:
--- McArdle wrote:
>
>>
>> QumHa'ghach naQ 'oH ghu''e' naDev wItu'taHbogh
>>
>
>I don't understand why {naQ} is there. Same comment
>about the metaphorical use of {tu'}.
>
Nuance. I was thinking of {-Ha'} in the sense of English "mis-", as in the example in TKD about "misspeaking/saying the wrong thing". It seemed to me that "failure to communicate" was a more severe condition than "miscommunication" and deserved some emphasis. (It may be that I have been underestimated the force of {-Ha'}, which I recognize can also mean "opposite".) In fact, at one point while I was working up my translation, I tried {-chu'} just as ghunchu'wI' suggested, but in the end the idea of "miscommunicating perfectly/clearly" just didn't work for me. Two things I never considered were (1) using a noun suffix for this emphasis, since after all {-ghach} has turned the word into a noun; or (2) putting a verb suffix on {'oH}. I like these both (but not both at the same time, of course.)
>> Would {wIghajbogh} have been acceptable instead of
>> {wItu'taHbogh}? How about {Doch} for {ghu'}?
>> Another thing: it seems wrong to me to use {-taH}
>> with {ghaj}, even though I have no trouble using it
>> with {tu'}. Is there any real basis for this in
>> tlhIngan Hol, or is this just an English-speaker's
>> prejudice?
>>
>
>I don't have any general prejudice against {ghajtaH}.
>I wouldn't use {ghaj} for "having a situation",
>though.
>I think you can only have things, not events.
>
>By the same token, I wouldn't use {Doch}, which I
>think of as a concrete thing. {wanI'} might apply,
>though.
>
I didn't really intend to use {ghaj} or {Doch}; just asking.
Hoch Satlho' 'ej Savan
McA
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com