tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 16 09:25:13 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: _HolQeD_
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 12:01:24 -0700
>From: "Mark J. Reed" <[email protected]>
>"Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]> writes:
>\ I'm not sure there's a contradiction. It seems that we're using "Hoch" in
>\ two different ways.
>\
>\ In Mark Mandel's article, the situation is with {Hoch} used in an ordinary
>\ N-N construction, indicating possession/genitive relation.
>I was simply referring to the way Dr. Okrand phrased his reply.
>Yes, in Mark Mandel's translation the {Hoch} is an ordinary N-N construction;
>no argument. But that N-N construction could be misconstrued, and when
>Dr. Okrand pointed out this possibility, he translated it as
>"all the fax machines", not "each fax machine" or "every fax machine".
>And he pointed out that the plural marker was not required, which seems to
>imply to me that the (misconstrued!) translation would be the same either
>way.
Ah, I see. I read the article and your letter quickly, and didn't refer
back to the article, so I missed your point. DopDaq qul yIchenmoH QobDI'
ghu'.
The only thing I can really suggest is that the letter to Mark was written
up in response to something else, and possibly before the points about Hoch
had coalesced in Okrand's mind, while the point I relayed was specifically
noted to bring to our attention (really. He said he had written it down
specifically to tell us because he knew we'd be interested. It was HE who
brought it up, not me). It's still a little curious, though.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMevCU8ppGeTJXWZ9AQG8AAL/U1xg3lVlw3vShAQIJ+wmfxkKmr32ayxZ
5uKPJ/h2j10CTPKNkZ+IJNg07eSIdqhjs75IIMPcezZbLLYNlK0ixESCBcqL05y7
JmbR8DoZEmr98GuJfTA1zNIn/H65TKBZ
=KMr/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----