tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 17 15:44:37 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Introduction Attempt
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Introduction Attempt
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 18:43:25 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
Comments below. - charghwI'
On Wed, 4 Sep 1996 09:30:30 -0700 "Mark E. Shoulson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:53:14 -0700
> >From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
>
> >Mike Rowe {batlhro'} wrote:
> >>De'wI'patmey vIpoj 'ej *Hapkido* vIghojmoH
>
> >trI'Qal answered:
> >>Very nice! There isn't anything wrong here!
>
> >But I don't think {*Hapkido* vIghojmoH} says what he wants it to.
> >Remember, {ghojmoH} doesn't mean "teach (a subject)". It literally
> >says "cause (someone) to learn". The object of {ghojmoH} properly
> >ought to be the person who is learning. [This starts to get into the
> >problem of how correctly to use {-moH} on a transitive verb, and given
> >the strangeness of the single apparent example we have so far, I'd
> >rather avoid trying to do it at all just yet.]
>
> Don't go there, ghunchu'wI'. :) This argument has been debated and hashed
> out years ago, you remember that. We DO now have an example (and I think
> it matches my intuitive subjective feelings), don't forget that. For
> myself, I do not think it is wrong to say "*Hapkido* vIghojmoH" (I think
> ghojmoH was even the classic example of the problem). Check the
> tlhIngan-Hol archives; search for "biology" in 1994 and 1995 for the
> various debates (one of the main sample sentences used was "I teach the
> child biology"; I happen to remember that).
Yes, but if we take that example to be correct, you could say,
{ghojwI'pu'vaD *Hapkido* vIghojmoH}, qar'a'? This is exactly why I still
have problems with that example, though I accept it until I get a better
explanation.
> ~mark
charghwI'