tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 24 06:09:20 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lommey (story, part 9)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:37:19 -0800
>From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
>
>December 23, 1996 5:07 AM, jatlh peHruS:
>
>> << > SuStel, reH maQochbe'laH. tlhIngan tighmey DIHaDnIStaH. >>
>>
>> Although you got {lommey} right, as opposed to the incorrect {lomDu'},
>> because the corpse is no longer a sentient being,
>
>Um . . . {-Du'} is the body parts plural. Why would anyone want to say
>{lomDu'}?
It was suggested once, I recall. And actually, it sounds pretty cool to
me, though really only as a poetic phrasing. Think of it this way,
starting with "porgh" first. A body is, in a sense, a body-part, even as a
set is a subset of itself (an improper subset, true). So does "porghDu'"
make sense? It does to me, though to be sure I'd expect it only in poetic
settings (and for the record, elsewhere I'd expect porghmey and not
?porghpu', even if I'm speaking of living bodies of sentient beings. It's
the *mind* that speaks and is sentient, not the body. My mouth speaks too,
but I don't call it "*nujwI'") "lomDu'" is a bit more of a step, since in
a certain sense the "people" for whom those corpses are body-parts no
longer are there. But the hands of a dead person are still ghopDu', right?
In any case, "lomDu'", even if correct, would be really weird. But it's
cool to think about.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMr/kDMppGeTJXWZ9AQEhogL/Y/ToHqUAkTXaK8RXRiPAHd6H9ZmpTXlb
HzTAm5vePPXIRPS7LxEIzIRsULNvLuswWyMQcd+9AjEJsW94BcC28R4XtbTEB1ZV
xN1YFgi746vuR0AV8TeGwfyCA1uPO6Ve
=lbb3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----