tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 24 05:15:45 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: All Permutations...
- From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
- Subject: KLBC: All Permutations...
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 18:13:33 -0500
>From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
>Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 16:49:28 -0500
>Subject: KLBC: All Permutations...
>
>>From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
>>Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 15:55:51 -0500
>>Content-Length: 1864
>>vIHqa': to move again
>
>Right, but remember that it's "to move" in the sense of "move itself".
Yes, I realize now that I started to mess up the definition in my head;
even the English definition had escaped me by the end of the message!
>>vIHmoH: to cause to move, to move <object>
>
>*This* is the transitive "moving".
Are you sure? if vIHtaH means "subject is moving", shouldn't vIHmoH be
something more to do with cause? Or perhaps this just doesn't work at
all?
>>vIHwI': mover
>
>Thing that is in motion, not thing that is moving other things.
Like in "mover and shaker" :)
>>vIHHa': to move back, to replace
>
>Not to me; sounds more like "to move badly" or "move wrongly". I've never
>seen a "back" meaning to "-Ha'"
Well, I've always seen -Ha' to be "undo"; I figured the undoing of motion
would be to move back. Of course, this kinda blurs when you realize that
the English is messing me up. If "vIH" means it moves, and "vIHta'"
means that it has moved, then wouldn't vIHHa' mean the movement back to
where it was before it moved? I have seen the -Ha' arguments, though,
so I know where you're coming from, but I think this translation might
work?
>I can: *yIvIHbe' isn't used for obscure reasons: it says so in black ad
>white on page 47, Section 4.3. "The suffix -be' cannot be used with
>imperative verbs."
Ah, missed that. Thanks. I kinda figured something like that would be
there...
>~mark
>
...Paul