tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 06 14:37:27 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: KLBC: Two quick questions
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: KLBC: Two quick questions
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 17:24:31 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 6 Nov 1996 08:58:54 -0800 Terry Donnelly
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, David Trimboli wrote:
>
> > jatlh ter'eS:
> >
> > > 2. Isn't it true that {-Daj} refers only to persons (beings capable of
> > > language?); in TKD, it's defined as "his, her". So to show possession by
> > > an object, you'd have to use a N-N construction?
> >
> > No. Look on TKD 25: {-Daj} refers to "his," "her," or "its." This suffix can
> > refer to objects as well as people.
> >
>
> Actually, Okrand isn't consistent with this. In TKD, pages 162 and 165, he
> defines it as "his/her" only. Is there any canon to clear this up?
>
> > SuStel
> > Stardate 96846.1
That "its'" is included anywhere at all is canon enough for me.
Since there is need of something meaning "its'" and {-Daj} is
listed in TKD to have this meaning and nothing else is listed
anywhere, I think you can safely bet that it works as a
possessive for things not capable of language.
Okrand listed {tlhej} as a noun in TKD, an obvious error which
he later acknowleged and has since used as a transitive verb in
canon. There's no sense clinging to clear errors. The ommission
of "its'" in two out of three places was simply an error. The
listing on page 25 is enough.
charghwI'