tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 11 16:51:39 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: nuqjatlh
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: nuqjatlh
- Date: Wed, 12 Mar 97 00:37:33 UT
On Tuesday, March 11, 1997 11:50 AM, [email protected] on behalf of Marc
Paige wrote:
> jatlh HurghwI'
> >>>
> mu'tlheghbej 'oHbe'mo' "Epidemes paradox" 'oHbe' mu'thleghlIj, 'ej 'oS'egh
> 'oH (It isn't self-referential). <<rghIlb HbQIng Hobjob> rap <mu'tlheghvam
> yajlaHbe'lu'>> jIjatlh 'e' rur mu'tlheghlIj. teHlaw' 'oH, 'ach DabuSDI',
> teHHa'bej je' Dap 'oH 'e' Dalegh.
>
> Your sentence isn't a sentence, so it doesn't refer to itself, and thus is
> not paradoxical, but simply nonsense.
> <<<
>
> A few confusing parts:
>
> Isn't <bej> only allowed on verbs? I don't think <mu'tlheghbej> is correct.
Right. It should be {mu'tlheghna'}.
> Is there a missing <be'> in <'ej 'oS'egh 'oH> (i.e. <'ej 'oSbe''egh 'oH>
Yes.
> What is the <<rghIlb HbQIng Hobjob> rap <mu'tlheghvam yajlaHbe'lu'>> doing?
> Is it to provide an example of nonsense?
Several forms of nonsense. The first bit is the obvious nonsense words. The
next is that you can't use {-laH} and {-lu'} at the same time, yet we find it
here. Also, {rap} is *probably* not a transitive word; it's "be the same,"
not "be the same as." Therefore, the things that are the same should all be
the subjects.
Since I'm here, let me point out one or two other things (sorry, HurghwI'!).
> mu'tlheghbej 'oHbe'mo' "Epidemes paradox" 'oHbe' mu'thleghlIj,
That should also have {-'e'} on the last word.
> jIjatlh 'e' rur mu'tlheghlIj
This bit is weird. Can you say "your sentence resembles that I speak"? It
doesn't make too much sense to me.
> teHHa'bej je' Dap 'oH 'e' Dalegh
I think he meant {'ej}, not {je'}.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97193.8