tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 15 19:44:35 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: RE: Saj, 'ay' wa'DIch



On Sat, 12 Jul 1997 18:11:47 -0700 (PDT)  Deborah Kay 
<[email protected]> wrote:
 
>> According to Will Martin:
>> 
>> The situation was difficult. They didn't think THAT.
>> They didn't think that the situation was difficult.
>> 
>> The situation was difficult. They didn't consider THAT.
>> They didn't consider that the situation was difficult.
>> 
>> Now, I'm tending to favor your suggestion, SuStel. I'd even
>> consider {Har} a better choice than {qel}. Using {qel} does
>> sound like they failed to factor in difficulty of the
>> situation, rather than that they believed that the situation
>> was normal or even easy.
> Your interpretation of <qel> describes how the family felt. In fact, their 
> lives were difficult, but since that was all they were used to, they did not 
> think it to be the case.  I think this means that I missed the mark when I 
> tried to describe the family's situation.  So if the preceeding sentences in 
> the story made this clear, would you accept the use of <qel>?

The difference as I see it is that {Har} would mean that they 
considered whether or not things were difficult and decided that 
they were not difficult. Using {qel} implies that they never 
addressed the issue of difficulty. Either can be valid. It just 
depends on which one you meant. It's sort of like the difference 
between athiesm and nonthiesm. As my philosphy professor put it, 
in the Navy, everything has a locker. A rope is in the rope 
locker. A life preserver is in the life preserver locker. 
Athiests believe that there is a God locker and they are 
personally certain that it is empty. Nonthiests don't believe 
there is a God locker.

{Har} says there is a difficulty locker and it is empty. {qel} 
says there is no difficulty locker. Is this clear?

> SanDar

charghwI'





Back to archive top level