tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 09 14:31:53 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Does this sentence make sense?
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Does this sentence make sense?
- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 94 17:31:43 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "METEU, THE MIGHTY LLAMA" at Nov 9, 94 4:49 pm
According to METEU, THE MIGHTY LLAMA:
...
> The reason I did'nt use "boghmoH" is because I didn't see it. Do you think the
> sentence would be better if I did like
>
> puqmey boghmoH targhmey 'e' rur chIjtaHghachlIj
Sorry I didn't catch this earlier. This is a little confused.
It looks like, "Your navigation resembles that targs bear
puppies." I actually had a mental image closer to:
bIchIjDI' puqmey boghmoHlI'bogh targh'e' DaDa.
"When you navigate, you act like a targ having puppies."
Are you referring to a disorganized map? Then it might be:
puqmey boghmoHlI'bogh targh'e' bIng rur chIjtaHghachlIj.
Note that I am willingly violating the rule that says that in a
noun-noun construction (targh bIng) only the second noun can
carry the type 5 suffix. I do this because this rule was stated
BEFORE Krankor's addition later sanctified by Okrand to use the
{-'e'} suffix to indicate the head noun of a relative clause.
This combination of a relative clause with two potential heads
and a noun-noun possessive construction is useful and not all
that impossible to run into, as this example shows. I think
Okrand needs to step out and make this exception to his early
rule.
> Joe Schelin
charghwI'