tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 15 16:37:54 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Happy New Year!
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Happy New Year!
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 97 23:40:59 UT
January 14, 1997 11:46 PM EST, jatlh Voragh:
> |> If you must admit uncertainty, though, it's simplest to just put -law' on
> |> the verb: DaHjaj javvatlh jabbI'ID vIghajlaw'!
> |
> |This may mean that you're unsure as to whether you *have* 600 messages, not
> |how many you have.
>
> As opposed to what? Either I have 600 messages or none at all?
>
> To quote TKD 4.2.6 (p.60), emphasis added:
>
> <<This suffix expresses *any* uncertainty on the speaker's part and may
> even be thought of as meaning "I think" or "I suspect". Thus the previous
> two slentences could be translated "I think it's empty" [chImlaw'], "I
> suspect that he/she is controlling us" [nuSeHlaw'].>>
Ah, but here's the catch. What if I wanted to say "I think two officers are
controlling us"? We're not questioning how many officers are controlling us
(perhaps we know two officers, and we suddenly get the idea that they are
controlling our minds, but we have no proof). We're stating our uncertainty
that "controlling" is happening.
nuSeHlaw' cha' yaS.
This doesn't mean "officers are controlling us, but we don't know exactly how
many."
> If I had said, for example, DaHjaj javvatlh jabbI'ID vIghajbej, then I
> would be claiming I had *exactly* 600 (perhaps I counted them).
No, it means you definitely have 600 transmissions. Say my mailer went down,
and I'm not sure if it's functional yet. I know I'm going to download 600
messages, but I'm not sure if I have them yet. {javvatlh jabbI'ID
vIghajlaw'}. However, I wouldn't automatically rule out the possibility that
you're talking about the number of messages being in question. I'd suggest
that if the number of messages is in question, you might say {javvatlh
jabbI'ID'e' vIghajlaw'}. This is not a rule, just a suggestion. It's telling
you that the topic of the sentence is {javvatlh jabbI'ID}, and you can also
see the {-law'} there.
> Remember
> the explanation in Power Klingon about -bej being used "when there is no
> doubt in your mind as to the accuracy of the statement".
Yes, but "accuracy" doesn't necessarily mean numerical correctness (hee hee!).
It also means that what you said, in this case about having something, is
absolutely correct.
nuH vIghajbej.
I definitely have a weapon.
> Of course if for some reason I wanted to stress that this was a considered
> estimate, I'd say so and use {noH}: DaHjaj javvatlh jabbI'ID vIHevpu' 'e'
> vInoH!
This I like.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97043.1