tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 30 17:36:49 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Okrand on /jatlh/
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Okrand on /jatlh/
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 20:36:46 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (messagefrom Terrence Donnelly on Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:34:47 -0700 (PDT))
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
>
>Hence, my confusion. The sentences {<nuqDaq> vIjatlh} and {<SoH 'IV> vIjatlh}
>seem correct, if the logic chain above is correct, but both contradict what
>MO says about direct quotes later in the same post. In this case, the sentences
>should be {nuqDaq jIjatlh} and {SoH 'Iv jIjatlh}. There apparently is some
>cross-over point at which one set of rules for {jatlh} ends and the other
>begins.
I think there's the problem. Languages DON'T work logically. "Logically,"
I should be able to say "The toy the boy the man the woman loved hit liked
broke." After all, it's just normal embedding of noun phrases. But after
a while it just gets too heavy and the stack gets too full, and we no
longer consider it meaningful (and hence by many definitions, no longer
grammatical). So too, each step of your construction may make sense, but
the end result, "<mu'tlhegh> vIjatlh" for "I say <mu'tlhegh>" is not
correct, in no small part due to the fact that it also means "I say a
sentence" and perhaps Klingon would like to minimize this ambiguity where
possible. Your chain of events is very pretty, but not guaranteed to hold
water (and indeed we're told it doesn't).
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBM7hRG8ppGeTJXWZ9AQF6PwL9G/nKOEcyaUXIr4bZ93oLpls+veDRlhfM
afZL68lEz3N7MKp8SH24QCmJHhRePrL8SxqrWZ6BB0OC/CGnC9u0pAKTzhFcMDrj
lp8uHKPlS7lNjXbec34ShcjTIXjFL1Zq
=rYMb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----