tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 22 13:38:00 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: About {pong}
- From: HoD trI'Qal <triqal>
- Subject: Re: About {pong}
- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 1995 16:37:59 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Silauren, Half-Elven" at Jan 22, 95 04:19:15 am
> On Sat, 21 Jan 1995, HoD trI'Qal wrote:
> > 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!!!
I assure you, it was not. Hagh qoHpu' neH HeghtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'.
> > 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*
The only problem with charghwI's recasting is when the both the subject
and the object need to be explicity stated, as well as the name. For
example, how would you say, "The warrior named his son qeylIS"? Using
charghwI's method, you can't. This way, you can:
puqloDDajvaD qeylIS pongta' SuvwI'
See what I mean?
--tQ
--
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH, qatlh reH HaghtaH HoD Qanqor...?
--HoD trI'Qal Captain T'rkal ---------------------
tlhwD lIy So' IKV Hidden Comet | [email protected]