tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 08 08:30:37 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Does this sentence make sense?
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Does this sentence make sense?
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 94 11:30:24 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "METEU, THE MIGHTY LLAMA" at Nov 7, 94 6:07 pm
According to METEU, THE MIGHTY LLAMA:
>
> Meteu, the mighty Llama said...
> >> puqmey lIngtaHbogh targhmey pImHa' chIjtaHghachlIj
>
> Ok, let me try it again, how is this:
>
> puqmey lIngtaH targhmey 'e' rar chIjtaHghachlIj
Except for the typo (rar > rur), it works for me. Of course to
make sense of it, you have to have seen a targ have puppies.
Believe me, it is not a pretty site. Words like "neat" or
"organized" do not come to mind. Thrashing desperately,
smearing blood all over the place, making loud, terrified and
terrifying sounds... I've seen navigators like that, and
believe me, next time I see one, I'm heading straight for the
escape pods. Honor is one thing, but to lose one's life to the
stupidity of one who would plot a course through a nova, well,
that's just no way for a SuvwI'na' to check out...
> charghwI' replied...
>
> >Meanwhile, in your sentence, it looks far more like a job for
> >{rur} instead of {pImHa'}. What do YOU think?
>
> Yes, that verb works much better, thank you. I didn't realize that it existed.
> Do you think that pImbe' would have worked better than pImHa'?
Not really. That would be a weaker statement, that it is
passively not different, rather than being actively
undifferent. Neither one really replaces {rur} or "be same"
(Sorry, but I don't have my dictionary with me right now).
> >> Is it possible (or useful) to use the suffex -moH on the
> >> verb vemmoH or is it redundant?
>
> >It is almost certainly not acceptable. In most instances, there
> >are easy alternatives:
>
> >SuvwI' yIvemmoH 'e' qara'.
>
> What I meant is that it seems that vemmoH already has the sense that is
> supposed to be given by -moH. It might just be the way I read it.
> Sorry if I mangled this reply. I had to do it by hand.
>
> Joe Schelin
>
No problem. My response is that the only reason that you would
want to add another {-moH} to {vemmoH} is if you want to say
that you are causing someone to cause someone else to awaken.
You can't stack suffixes of the same type like that. The rules
are clear that, except for rovers, you can have only one suffix
of each type on any one word. If you DO want to speak of
causing someone to cause someone to awaken, one of the two
causes must be broken out into some other grammatical device,
most likely another verb, like {ra'}.
charghwI'