tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 08 19:05:28 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: E pluribus unum: $0.02-wIj
On Wed, 8 Mar 1995, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >From: "A.Appleyard" <[email protected]>
> >Sorry. {law'wI'vo' ghaH wa'} ?
>
> Why "ghaH"? We were talking about countries, not people. I'd rather
> consider a country to be an "it", not a speaking being.
>
> I'm not sure I like it perfectly as it stands then either; for one think
> it somehow sounds more natural to me as "wa' 'oH" than "'oH wa'" and in
> either case it means "it is one." I know that pronouns can be used for "to
> be" of existence (as in "pa'DajDaq ghaH yaS"), but it sounds weird applied
> to this case. Recall that near as we can tell, pronouns-as-verbs are
> *copulas* and aren't normally used for just plain existence (despite the
> example just cited). Recall someone's suggestion for "verengan vIHoHmeH
> 'oH tajvam" for "In order to kill the Ferengi, this knife is." It sounds
> more like "It's this knife," and I wonder *what* is that knife.
Don't forget: in constructions of this type, if the subject is a noun, it
always takes the topic suffix. E.g. {pa'DajDaq ghaH yaS'e'.}
I wouldn't use {law'wI'vo' 'oH wa''e'}. Aside from the question of whether
it is grammatically correct, it isn't clear outside of context what {wa'}
is referring to. To me this sentence does not indicate something has been
formed from many, but rather something is proceeding in a direction away
from many. {wa'} could just as well be referring to a torpedo:
nughoS jagh Dujmey yo'. Dujmaj lurghDaq cha baH Dajmeychaj Hoch.
Do' Dujmaj mup wa' neH. law'wI'vo' 'oH wa''e'.
> ~mark
yoDtargh