tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 17 08:49:35 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
ruch
- From: Nick Nicholas <[email protected]>
- Subject: ruch
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 01:56:41 +0000
- Organization: University of Melbourne, Dept. of Linguistics
>>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>>
>According to [email protected]:
>> I need to find the reference; it is in Hamlet.
>> It says wIruch.....
>> Previously I had used {ruch} transitively and ghunchu'wI' advised me that he
>> "thought" {ruch} is only intransitive. I am simply pointing out that I still
>> think it is either transitive or intransitive, with Hamlet's backing.
>Please realize that while Hamlet is a wonderful work, it was
>not done by Okrand and is not canon. The authors and
>grammarians have done their best, but in particular, Nick, for
>all his genius, took liberties with the grammar in order to
>achieve the amazing feat of rhyming meter for the bulk of the
>text. I'd not like any random piece of this great work used as
>canonical justification for other useage.
This is true, of course --- although the great constraint on us was not as much
metre or rhyme, but simply that we had to churn out 160 K of text without a
bucketload of guidance from canon. In this particular instance, however, you need
not recourse to Hamlet when you have the classic phrase from CK (it was CK, wasn't
it?): targhlIj yIngagh yIruch.
Nick, who has just had a fellow linguist run away from him rather quickly when
he mentioned his involvement in the Hamlet Restoration Project...
(And if only *we'd* had a word from 'clan'!)
--
A Frenchman once observed to me: Nick Nicholas. PhD student,
On the edge of the Rubicon Linguistics, University of Melbourne.
Men don't go fishing. [email protected]
--- Alice Goodman, _Nixon in China_. http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~nsn