tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 09 19:39:57 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC? OK. How's this? (Was Re: KLBC I'm confused)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC? OK. How's this? (Was Re: KLBC I'm confused)
- Date: Tue, 9 May 95 22:39:54 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Steve Weaver" at May 9, 95 1:26 pm
According to Steve Weaver:
>
> chargwI', ~mark:
> Soj chonob 'ej jajvam jIHSop
Minor Typo: lose the {H} in {jISop}. Also, we definitely have
the word {DaHjaj}, but the word {jajvam} is somewhat iffy.
Basically, we have no assurance that {-vam} doesn't belong only
to nouns which are things you can point to. Abstracts like days
may not be appropriate for that suffix.
Again, we are not sure of this. Meanwhile, why bother? We have
{DaHjaj}. Use it.
> wam choghojmoH 'ej jIghungbe'taH
Here, {wam} and {ghoj} compete as main verbs of the same
sentence. Also, {wam} is apparently referring to a third person
subject.
I'd like to back up and look at this again, thinking about the
meaning behind the original quote. {'ej} doesn't really carry
enough meaning between what is really a cause and an effect.
Instead, I'd go for:
Soj chonobchugh vaj qaStaHvIS DaHjaj neH vISop.
jIwammeH choghojmoHchugh vaj not jIghungqa'.
Some may think that the {qaStaHvIS} is unnecessary. Perhaps
this is true. Meanwhile, I think the adverbial {neH} is an
essential part of the meaning of the sentence, and I'm not
certain that I can use it on a noun used as a time stamp.
Meanwhile, I AM sure I can use it on a subject, so I choose to
use {qaStaHvIS} so that {DaHjaj} becomes a subject.
"If you give me food, then I will eat only while today happens.
If you teach me in order that I hunt, then I will never be
hungry again."
> (apologies to Dan Quale)
Why? Did he misspell THAT, too?
> Coments, corrections, criticisms welcome.
I always hear the sound of incoming mortars when I read that.
> Steve Weaver [email protected]
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |