tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 31 18:58:56 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC Buy me a drink
- From: "HurghwI'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC Buy me a drink
- Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 20:58:15 -0600
At 01:41 PM 12/30/96 -0800, you wrote:
>December 27, 1996 5:30 PM, jatlh HurghwI':
>
>> jatlh SuStel:
>> >The solution: either name the drink: {HIqwIj qIj yIDIl!}, or use an {'e'}
>> >sentence: {jItlhutlh 'e' yIDIl!} There's no reason that there *has* to be
>a
>> >noun for "drink." Maybe there even is, but it has not been revealed.
>>
>> I realize that there was a little discussion about this recently, but I'm
>> still not comfortable with <jItlhutlh 'e' yIDIl>. To me this means "Buy that
>> I drink." Not buy so that I drink, though. It just doesn't make any sense to
>> me. When you use 'e' you refer to the whole previous sentence as a phrase or
>> thought. You can "think it," or "disagree with it," or whatever, but you
>> can't "buy it." It just doesn't sit right. Anyway, what about <jItlhutlhmeH
>> yIDIl>?
>
>{DIl} is "pay for," not "buy." There's a bit of a difference there.
I fail to see it, at least as far as meaning for translation goes. If you
buy something, you pay for it, and visa versa. I think you are reading a
"pay for X so that Y" into <DIl> which doesn't exist. It's just "pay for X."
>{'e'} refers to the entire previous sentence as an object. This makes it act
>like a noun.
Correct, but my point was that it refers to the _sentence_, not the act
itself, as a sentence/phrase/idea. You can use {'e'} to assert that the
sentence is true, or believed by you, or understood, or whatever, but one
can't "buy" (read "pay for") an idea, or sentence.
>{(jItlhutlh) yIDIl} is what we're striving for here; {jItlhutlh} is the object
>of {yIDIl}. "Pay for --" The thing that is being paid for is going in the
>blank. In this case, I don't see why {jItlhutlh} is wrong. If I said
>{tlhutlhlI'ghachwIj yIDIl} you wouldn't have a problem.
I might, although less of one. They have completely different meanings, for
one thin. You don't pay for the act of drinking, you pay for my drink. If
you were to pay for the act of me drinking, you would be hiring me so that
you could watch me drink (whatever the reason).
>jItlhutlh 'e' yIDIl.
>I drink. Pay for that.
This is the same problem. You can't "buy" (read "pay for") the fact that I
drink. You wouldn't even if you could. You pay for the drink itself. If you
want to say "Pay _in order_ that I drink," you could use the phrase I
mentioned earlier. It appears to me that you are reading something into the
combination of <'e'> and <DIl> that is simply not there. The translation
speaks for itself; it makes no sense. "Pay for that I drink."
-HurghwI'