tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 19 07:08:46 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: taghqIj concedes defeat! :)
According to Anthony Curran:
>
> >According to Matt Treyvaud:
> >..
> >> But how would it be if I said:
> >>
> >> qaStaHvIS poHvam, pa' jIHbe'
> In TKD sec 3.3.4 p26 it states, "<-vam> this. Like its English
> translation, this suffix indicates that the noun refers to an object which
> is nearby or which is the topic of the conversation." and "<-vetlh> that.
I think the word "object" is key here.
> Like its English translation, this suffix indicates that the noun refers to
> an object which is not nearby or which is being brought up again as the
> topic of the conversation."
Again, I think the word "object" should not be overlooked. He
is not saying that you can use this to refer to the topic of
conversation. He is saying that you can use this to refer to an
OBJECT which is the topic of conversation.
Given this wording, I'm tempted to be even MORE conservative
and not use it on {ghu'} or {wanI'}. These are arguably not
objects.
> The second part of these definitions does not
> seem to place any spacial or temporal restriction on the referent.
Actually, it sounds even more restrictive than I initially
thought. It sounds like it is appropriately used only on
concrete (as opposed to abstract) things. If you can't touch
it, you don't really have grounds to use {-vam} or {-vetlh} to
refer to it.
If Okrand provides examples or testimony to expand from these
restrictions, great. If yoDtargh can remember any such examples
(a skill for which he deserves to be legendary), I'd love to
hear it. Meanwhile, I'm reluctant to take your broad
interpretation. I can see what you want to see in Okrand's
words, but I don't see it there myself.
> If
> during the course of a conversation we established that a specific event
> took place during a certain period of time, then <poHvam> or <poHvetlh>
> would be a valid referent connecting the present conversation to the prior
> event. Or am I missing your point?
But just because a {poH} is the topic of conversation, that
doesn't make it "an object which is nearby or which is the
topic of the conversation". Distill the phrase, and it means
"an object which is the topic of conversation". I can't agree
to distilling it to just "any topic of converstaion".
> qo'ran
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |