tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 10 07:59:17 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: or
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 19:52:29 -0800
>From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
>
>January 31, 1997 1:23 AM EST, jatlh maqlIy:
>
>> Dargh ghap qa'vIn IlneH'a'?
>> Do you want tea or coffee? (Not both)
>
>This is a funny case. You have chosen {lI-} as your prefix. There *are* two
>objects listed, but here's the interesting bit: using {ghap}, you are saying
>that only one can be the case. So you cannot want both. In that case, might
>one not use {nI-} instead of {lI-}? There's no answer in canon to that, I'm
>afraid. Personally, I'd use {nI-}, but I can't say you're wrong. My sentence
>would be
>
>Dargh qa'vIn ghap nIneH'a'?
This question has been batted about from time to time, and we don't have a
good answer; Klingon is probably kinda flexible on this point is my guess.
But at any rate, you have your subject and object confused. No matter how
you slice it, it should be "Dargh qa'vIn ghap DaneH'a'?" (or "boneH'a'" if
there are multiple people being asked). "nI-" and "lI-" are asking if it
or they like you.
>Now, here's something else to think about. As far as I can tell, you're
>asking
>
>Do you want (coffee or tea)?
>
>You're not asking
>
>(Do you want coffee?) either/or (do you want tea?)
>
>See the difference? If I told you that I drink tea, but not coffee, then my
>technical answer to your question would have to be {HIja'}.
>
>I'd solve this by asking two questions:
>
>Dargh DaneH'a'? qa'vIn DaneH'a'?
This is my personal preference as well. The "or" of the English, in a
sense, is not a logical connective. It is a questioning conjunction.
We're sort of asking "which conjunction would go well here?" (using a
broader meaning for "conjunction" than the language actually has). In
Lojban, there actually *is* a "questioning conjunction", and you answer
with a conjunction (conjunctions can mean "the first but not the second",
"the second but not the first", "both", "neither", etc. in Lojban). I
rather like the two-question approach.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMv9FyMppGeTJXWZ9AQGtQQL/RK1Cl4LrlfaF9kaWUCXrlmg4KTOsIM4S
8U6dT0bryCbDnsfYNywo0Q0YJ821+WdXGES+y7ZNE/gTC6oKkhC5EFP46q2oJfFl
nMMwAQthTO7H3Fm1Td3g4N1iKb6WzLnS
=/1tp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----