tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 17 07:56:41 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: easy sentences

> The discussion given seems to indicate that -taH is an unintentional 
> continuation and -lI' is an intentional continuation (theory #1).  Some 
> of the examples, OTOH, imply that -taH means, "who knows when it's going 
> to stop," and -lI' means, "we know when it's going to stop," (theory 
> #2).  I was particularly intrigued by Okrand's first example for each 
> suffix.

Of course I haven't seen the discussion, but I'd go with #1, except
that I don't like the word "intentional". The intention lies, IMHO,
in the goal. with -taH there need not be a goal for the action, or it
doesn't matter in the current discussion. with -lI' the one who acts
does this on purpose and that's why we're talking about it.

> Theory #1 seems to win this argument [deleted] .  But theory #2 
> resurfaces when you realize that yIjuntaH can not possibly mean, "take 
> unintentional evasive action!"  What am I missing here.

I think what is meant, is that there's no defined goal for the action,
it's just react to the enemy's moves. yIjunlI' might be appropriate, if
you previously set up a refuge, where you're now evading to.
(I'm not sure if this makes sense in English, it doesn't in German :-)
> 
> Under any circumstance, QonglI' seems better, as I think we can safely 
> assume that they fell asleep intentionally and are expected to wake up in 
> the morning.

I'd have said, they don't sleep with the goal to wake up at a given time,
so it's QongtaH, however I don't think of sleeping as a process, so
I've used Qong.
> 
> janSIy  }}:+D>
> 

			Qapla'
				Marc 'Doychlangan'

--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender	[email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------

Back to archive top level