tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 22 01:14:02 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: About {pong}
On Sat, 21 Jan 1995, HoD trI'Qal wrote:
> form of apposition?). Anyway, this is the way I would solve the problem:
>
> ghaHvaD "George" vIpong.
i like this a lot. this to me makes much sense.
> This, I think has been the majour argument *against* this form... that it
> uses the 'indirect object' construction. But, I think this is a
> perfectly valid use for -vaD. Why? because -vaD is NOT defined in terms
> of how it is used with indirect objects... it is defined as "for,
> intended for". Ie, that whatever it is attached to is the intended
> recipient of the verb. Now, when I say "We name our dog Max", I doubt
> anyone here is going to doubt that that the *dog* is the intended
> recipient of the sentence (Just as if I said "I give the god a bone"...
^^^
hrm.... somehow i doubt that was intentional, but damned i wish it was!!!
> the recipient is still the dog, right?). Okay, so then, if -vaD goes on
> the intended recipient, and the intended recipient is still the dog...
> why can't I say:
>
> targhvaD "Max" wIpong
>
> Comments? Linguists? (Nick? ~mark?)
>
> (I'm sure I left a few loopholes a mile wide in that logic... let's see
> 'em guys!)
looks good to me... personally i find it more a matter of style than
anything else. whether i say <naQ'avwI' mupong tlhInganpu'> or
<jIHvaD *Silauren* lupong *elf*pu'> seems to me to amount to the same
thing: a construction that should make sense to nearly any <tlhIngan
jatlhwI'>, telling them that certain people know me by certain names.
*shrug*
> --HoD trI'Qal
just my .02.....
--naQ'avwI'
tlhIngan Hol Dajatlhchugh "[email protected]"Daq jabbI'IDmeylIj yIngeH
*&* Silauren, Half-Elven *&* Jeremy Greene *&* There's only ONE god!
*&* [email protected] *&* Don't drop acid. *&* He is the SUN god!!
*&* [email protected] *&* Take it Pass/Fail. *&* Ra! Ra!! RA!!!
*&* "Get in there, you big furry oaf! I don't care what you smell!" -Han Solo