tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 19 06:58:25 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC mu'ghomHomwIj vIlo'be'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC mu'ghomHomwIj vIlo'be'
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 09:58:23 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Robyn Stewart" at Dec 17, 97 06:46:01 pm
According to Robyn Stewart:
...
> Actually, I don't like {SIS muD} much. I'm with charghwI' on
> {SISlu'}. I'd accept {SIS}, but when the pronoun {'oH} is stated, I
> want to know its antecedent.
I don't remember that I said this, but seeing it now, I
definitely like it.
> >>...fortunately it's warm in my house.
> >[Do' juHwIjDaq tuj Hat] [...the temperature is hot...] lugh'a'?
> >[Hat]-noun ['oH]-pronoun (which can replace nouns)
> >[Do' juHwIjDaq tuj 'oH] lugh'a'?
> >drop the redundant ['oH] brings us back to
> >Do' juHwIjDaq tuj.
>
> Did I bite at {Do' juHwIjDaq tuj}? I don't mind it now.
I'd just say {Do' tuj juHwIj.} It is simpler.
> I believe that there is a right way to speak about
> weather conditions. I don't believe it is with a floating and
> never-quite-identified "it" the way English does. You do, and you
> don't think the "it" is unidentified. We disagree. I can live with
> it.
I'm with Qov on this one. And if you don't want to specify what
is raining or what is warm, {-lu'} is the suffix which
expresses the unspecified subject. That is what it is for.
charghwI'