tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 25 00:23:07 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} DIGEST V1 #60
- From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} DIGEST V1 #60
- Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 21:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
On Sun, 24 Sep 1995, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 20:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
> >From: "R.B Franklin" <[email protected]>
>
> >But perhaps a simple way you could say it is: {ngab rIntaH pagh.} (Nothing
> >completely vanishes.)
>
> I don't think I buy this one. For starters, I think the word-order sounds
> better as "ngab pagh rIntaH", but also it doesn't seem right.
Section 4.2.7 seems to indicate that {rIntaH} follows the verb: "It is
used to denote that the action denoted by the preceeding verb...."
It also make sense to me to place {rIntaH} immediately after the verb
because it modifies the verb. But I'm not saying I'm right and you're
wrong because the rules don't really say exactly where to put it and we
don't have an example of a sentence with an explicitly stated subject.
(Perhaps you can ask Dr. Okrand when you get a chance. {{:-) )
> rIntaH
> doesn't seem to make sense in the negative. It's a sentence in its own
> right, modifying another in a unique way. You can say "X happened, and
> it's done" but saying "X doesn't happen and it's done" doesn't work (after
> all, rIntaH is sort of like "and it remains accomplished." If it didn't
> happen or can't happen, then it DOESN'T remain accomplished).
I don't disagree with your logic, but I do disagree with your translation
of the sentence. The sentence does not say that it "does not happen", (I
did not use {-be'}) but rather it remains a fait accompli that no one or
nothing has done it.
> Besides, to talk about something doing something "completely" or
> "perfectly", the Klingon Grammarians in their generosity have bequeathed
> unto us "-chu'".
I recognize that my use of the word "completely" is not an exact
translation of the word {rIntaH}, but the sentence is one which does not
easily translate into English without a lot of awkward-sounding language.
In the original post, the question was for a way to say, "Nothing
which vanishes can not be tracked down." In this case, I thought
{rIntaH} would be a better choice in meaning "nothing which vanishes
remains a fait accompli (that it has vanished)". In other words,
sooner or later someone will find it; it does not remain hidden for good.
I do not think {-chu'} sematically fits well with the meaning I intended
because it would indicate nothing can perfectly vanish, that is, even if
it tries, it can still be seen or detected; which is different than saying
things can vanish, but they don't remain unfound.
> ~mark
yoDtargh