tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 20 08:31:56 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: This Stone Thread; SOLVED!!
- From: David Barron <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: This Stone Thread; SOLVED!!
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 09:31:31 -0700 (MST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Mar 20, 96 07:59:05 am
~mark replies to dbarron:
>
> >Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:45:58 -0800
> >From: david barron <[email protected]>
>
> >Did you gents not get my post where I found a solution with which
> >I was perfectly satisfied?
>
> >nagh lanbeHlu'bogh
>
> >Here the stone is ready to be PLACED!!!
> >It makes sence to me.
> >I welcome your critique.
>
> Hmm. I like it and I don't. On the one hand, it makes a certain amount of
> sense. But on the other hand, -beH is generally a reference to the
> *subject*. "HoHbeH", it is set to kill. "lI'beH" it is configured to
> transmit. "pumbeH" it is set up to fall. But with the -lu' construction,
> the subject is indefinite. Using -lu' does *NOT* change the object into
> the subject. The rock is *still* the OBJECT of the verb, and as such may
> not be subject to being described by the -beH suffix. Pretend the -lu'
> suffix weren't there, and the subject were definite (or perhaps is stated
> as "vay'"). The sentence still has the SAME grammar, but using -beH no
> longer makes any sense.
>
Okay, I get your point.
It seems to raise a paradox if you think about it.
Now I wonder if its worth thinking about.
I guess my question is "If you were a Klingon would you understand it?"
Is it ungramatical?
Can you offer a better suggestion?
> ~mark
>
david
--
David Barron || lup Hoch yIyInqu'
Klingon Language Postal Course || qaStaHvIS wa' lup
P.O. Box 37, Eagle ID 83616 || yInpu' wa'netlh yInmey
It's FREE! Send Self-Addressed Stamped Envelope. Not available by E-mail!
E-mail [email protected] Finger me for more details.