tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 06 15:01:28 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: how to say "any"
- From: [email protected] (JEFF ZEITLIN)
- Subject: Re: how to say "any"
- Date: Tue, 06 Aug 96 17:53:00 -0500
- Organization: Execnet Information System - 914-667-4567 - 206.181.98.136
- References: <[email protected]>
T::>> DIvI'Daq jatlhlu' Hol Dajatlh'a' SoH
T::>Too many main verbs, and word-order problems. If you make it "Hol
::>jatlhlu'bogh" you've probably got something. Otherwise you have two main
::>verbs, and the language is the one doing the speaking.
I'm not sure I follow you entirely; I do agree that I missed
the <-bogh>, however.
So if I'm interpreting your statement correctly, you're
suggesting that <DIvI'Daq jatlhlu' Hol> should be replaced by
<DIvI'Daq Hol jatlhlu'bogh>, making the resulting sentence
<DIvI'Daq Hol jatlhlu'bogh Dajatlh'a' SoH>.
T::>> {tlhIngan Hol} uses OVS (object-verb-subject) order (where a
::>> locative can apparently replace an object; look back at my
::>> first sentence in the list); try to break up your sentences
::>> into those three components. If necessary, do the same with
::>> each component, as I did above:
T::>The locative doesn't replace an object. It's a locative, neither subject
::>nor object. See TKD p.60 for a sentence mentioning that, and the example
::>"pa'Daq yaS vIleghpu'" (I have seen the officer in the room.)
OK, I see. I suspect that what confused me was that the
sentences I had been using as models either didn't have objects
at all, or had objects that were omitted as discernible from
context (assuming that the latter is grammatically legal).
T::>> So now we have {DIvI'Daq <they-speak> Hol}, and <they-speak> is
::>> {jatlhlu'}. Therefore, "a language which is spoken in the
::>> Federation" becomes {DIvI'Daq jatlhlu' Hol}, and this phrase in
::>> its entirety becomes the object of our original sentence. So,
::>> substitute it for <Fed-lang> above, and get the original
::>> {tlhIngan Hol} sentence I proposed:
T::>Not quite, since "a language is spoken in the Federation" is "DIvI'Daq Hol
::>jatlhlu'", since the language remains the OBJECT and must come first. And
::>since you want a language WHICH is spoken, you need "DIvI'Daq Hol
::>jatlhlu'bogh."
BINGO! Now it comes clear, and I see where I goofed - I didn't
follow the concept I had abbreviated as <Fed-lang> back
_far_enough_, and then I didn't check TKD as thoroughly as I
should have.
The key (to my understanding/enlightenment, anyway) is the
"literal" translation of <DIvI'Daq Hol jatlhlu'>:
"They-indefinite speak a language in the Federation", which, as
TKD notes (p.39), is also translatable as you did.
T::>> Now, I'm morally certain that I've made not less than one
::>> serious mistake here; I eagerly await correction by one of the
::>> more experienced and knowledgeable members of the list.
T::>Only two, really. Not too bad.
Well, that's "at least one" ... :)
T::>Yep. It's called assimilation (resistance is useless. You will be
::>assimilated). I mentioned that myself a few posts ago, that this is the
::>one example of assimilation we've seen, at least in Klingon orthography.
Thank you - "assimilation" was the word that I couldn't think
of when I wrote that.
==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin [email protected]
---
� OLXWin 1.00b � First study the enemy. Seek weakness.