tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 29 08:40:58 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Phrases
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Phrases
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:40:56 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromIrene Gates on Wed, 29 Jan 1997 06:26:40 -0800)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 06:26:40 -0800
>From: Irene Gates <[email protected]>
>
>jatlh SuStel:
>
>> [...] jatlh Perry J. Brulotte:
>[...]
>>> jImuSHa'pu' 'ej jIlujpu' 'e' vImaS. not jImuSHa'pu 'e' vImaSbe'.
>>> [Better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved.] [...]
>
>> "I have loved, and I prefer that I have failed. I do not prefer that I have
>> never loved."
>
>[...]
>
>> Hmmm . . . were you trying to say "I prefer that I have loved and I have
>> lost"? We have no evidence that you can do this, but it's not impossible. I
>> rather doubt it, though. You can cheat, though:
I don't really see why this doesn't work. The "valence" or "binding
strength" of the conjunctions has never been specified. Why can't "'e'"
refer to sentences which are conjoined? "I prefer that (I have loved and
failed). I do not prefer that (I never have loved)." Who's to say that
"'e'" is "stronger" than "'ej"? More likely, it goes either way, depending
on context.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMu99lcppGeTJXWZ9AQGgvgMAo8RXOfAqfBE5mldwceVVJutkyr/6xLay
QsmNCA47E62gl5tP8QLiNyhjz4bsxGs05DeWJhMJXIu3a+okYzpRlU54QNE0YEty
eo1B4RbbbTzy3g/BP5DW4BpBhfngpaVu
=62L3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----