tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 03 13:19:22 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: chay' "Get out of the way!" ra'lu'?
- From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: chay' "Get out of the way!" ra'lu'?
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sbcglobal.net; s=s1024; t=1244060207; bh=L84re4ezS4cm7N9FE+7Pqklbj3skrbEhIQvv2IKIn+Y=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ikV1+W63aWqaYA57YfasDtSRGtDBHXzQHxJQk05FpvJr23i8TEBIQSzbtgmYmGye5lWkw9L4QMPJ+kN9stCrcpwyiTZcqr4wdbCLkI3d+U9SfNagpku7zsD8bDHf0wy5kBP6fFCFsamM4WHAWQZ+M56/f9WzA7Fw+kW0tBoEhiM=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=56eDdaRrrr9uglZQsBspJFjUeXBiAH7FUWfuVia+qc/1dHaDQq+mHUp2LpiO5QcLjI5/Icjq/cb60iOJuoP+CLLMLYXHp5F6W8Zqv+2Km4qplzUo5npeSnbh0Q2ob1E0hRn+H56oMb80VH6esqJmJxYjh0GX4PpaM3jPtKMRwqQ=;
--- On Wed, 6/3/09, Steven Boozer <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: chay' "Get out of the way!" ra'lu'?
> To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 2:51 PM
> Fiat Knox:
> >> yIDev pagh yItlha' pagh HIwaQ 'e' yImev!
> Voragh:
> > Also, I'm not sure {pagh} "or else, either/or" works
> with three
> > clauses. All canon examples have only two
> clauses, usually opposites
> > (e.g. eat vs. drink, VERB vs. VERB{be'}, VERB vs.
> VERB{Ha'}). I would
> > drop the first {pagh}:
>
> >Fiat Knox wrote:
> >> I also recall "pung ghap HoS," "Mercy or power,"
> where "ghap" is
> >> "exclusive OR." Mercy and power are mutually
> incompatible, in this
> >> sense.
> >>
> >> In my sentence, the sentence-joining "exclusive
> or" preposition
> >> "pagh" was required to convey that same sense of
> mutual exclusivity.
> >> One is either leading, or following me; one cannot
> just stand there
> >> and be in the speaker's way. Well, one could, if
> one were willing to
> >> enjoy getting swiftly knocked down.
>
> SuStel:
> >The objection wasn't to your choice of words, it was to
> your placement
> >of the conjunctions. Instead of
> >
> > <phrase> pagh <phrase>
> pagh <phrase>
> >
> >the suggestion was to use
> >
> > <phrase>, <phrase>, pagh
> <phrase>
> >
> >because we've seen things like this before.
> >
> >However, I would call that a stylistic suggestion, not
> anything we know
> >definitively about the grammar.
>
> Actually my objection wasn't to the placement of
> conjunctions in general, but the placement/use of {pagh} "or
> else, either/or" specifically, which (to me) implies a
> choice between only two options: either/or.
> Using it with three options seemed odd... rather like
> speakers who misuse "on the other hand". E.g.:
>
> I could be right. On the other hand
> SuStel could be right.
> And on the other hand Fiat Knox could
> also be right!
>
> Thus implying three hands!
>
>
The proper phrase is "on the gripping hand..." ;-)
-- ter'eS
![[KLI Member]](../../../pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}