tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 17 10:58:23 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: SopDaq
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 21:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
>From: [email protected]
>
>In a message dated 97-04-11 22:37:05 EDT, SuStel writes:
>
><< hat's because it's a noun compound, and was fairly obvious in the
> accompanying context.
>
> > We know that {QongDaq} is canon for "bed."
>
> That's right. We know that because *Okrand* told us. >>
>
>This implies that {Qong} is a Noun, which I cannot find glossed anywhere.
> So, I suppose it is a Noun for which we do not have a translation.
No, it doesn't. It implies "QongDaq" means "bed." Haven't you seen all
the examples of this kind of reasoning we've been quoting which are WRONG?
We can say "to-day", "to-morrow", and "to-night", so that "implies" that
"to-" is a prefix in English which means "this..." (MAYBE only when applied
to verbs of time, if I want to be more conservative than you seem to want
to be). Therefore, I can say "to-afternoon," "to-evening," and
"to-Thursday," can't I? That logic is NO WEAKER than yours (stronger,
even, since I cited *three* examples to your one), and is quite patently
and obviously WRONG. It may be that "Qong" is a noun, or that verbs and
"Daq" or other nouns can combine, but given what we have seen languages do,
I think you would be foolish to think that you can assume that from a
single example, or a handful.
Otherwise, we mayed have thinked this wought speaked rightwise. But it
isn't.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBM1Zkt8ppGeTJXWZ9AQHdbwMAj+6ZoEqcmT0ZCo65QPCuDQVwKOlxgqXy
ziC13TzeUsMkQScvl8xzcasJf1y20fBjB8V9RxYI6MYy9WBCqWB7eDtpAbhv/dY7
bxJSeUGTi2Zed4K+R1Va6BfzGJr7lQy2
=nWrz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----