tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 09 15:18:49 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Quickie (possible spoiler)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Quickie (possible spoiler)
- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 97 23:09:50 UT
jatlh HomDoq:
> 'etlhqengwI' says about {mu'vamqoq}:
> > > Exactly! (It's a very terse tlhIngan Hol equivalent to an
> > > English sentence like "This sentence is false.")
> >
> to which SuStel replies:
> > That's what inspired it, but where "This sentence is false" is a loop or
> > sorts, my "word" is simply inclusively true.
> >
> beg your pardon? what does "inclusively true" mean?
If something is inclusively true, it includes itself in whatever it is
describing. I may be misspeaking the word, but I don't think so. I got the
phrase from reading about set theory.
"Multisyllabic" is an inclusive term. "Monosyllabic" is not. It does not
apply to itself.
> I admit, I have some difficulties in getting the joke;
> if you mean, the suffixes are reversed and in the _right_ order
> describe the construct with the _wrong_ order, I kinda see it...
> (the compound of {mu'vam} with {qoq} is a legal but - at least
> to me - unintelligible word)
No, I didn't mean "This word-robot."
Oh, come now. Don't tell me you couldn't understand what I meant when I said
{mu'vamqoq}. In fact, you managed to translate it! The word is said wrong,
and it means "this so-called word," indicating that it is incorrectly called a
"word" . . .
Well, *I* thought it was funny.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97188.1