tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 15 13:26:44 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: nuqjatlh
At 09:37 PM 3/14/97 -0800, you wrote:
>jatlh HurghwI':
>
>> > A sentence doesn't have to refer to itself (or even be a sentence) in
>order
>> >to have a parodox:
>> >
>> >THE NEXT SENTENCE IS TRUE.
>> >THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE IS FALSE.
>>
>> cha' mu'tlhegh tu'lu', HISlaH?
>
>As far as we know, and most likely, you cannot use {HISlaH}, {HIja'}, or
>{ghobe'} to create tag questions. For that, use {qar'a'}. {cha' mutlhegh
>tu'lu', qar'a'?}
Oh, right. I couldn't remebmer that word, and was writing without the aid
of a dictionary.
>> cha'Hu' jabbI'IDwIj vIlabbogh DalaDta'chugh,
>> <*vItna'> jIjatlh 'e' vIHechpu',
>
>Never put {-pu'} or any other Type 7 Verb Suffix on the second verb of an
>{'e'} sentence!
>> 'e' DaSov. 'ej, "paradox" 'oH wa'
>> mu'tlhegh neH'e'. *vItna' 'oHlaHbe' mu'tlheghvetlh'e' 'e' vIta' neH
>
>"I merely accomplish that that sentence cannot be definite truth"? What do
>you mean?
I meant <ja'>, "I was merely reporting that that sentence isn't inherently
true."
I meant to add a footnote about the meaning of <vItna'>, but I forgot.
>> [because it needs to refer to something which affirms it, in this case
>> itself]. 'ej paq Dajqu' DalaD DaneHchugh, "G�del, Escher, Bach" Danej.
>> "paradox"mey DatIvchugh, paqvetlh DaparHa'qu'.
>
>bIvangchugh 'uQ DaSop. bIQubchugh 'uQ Damojqu'!
bItlhaQ, 'ach bIvangchugh bIQubbe'taHvIS, 'uQ DaHutlhtaH. 'ej, Suvlu'taHvIS
yapbe' HoS neH 'e' yIqaw.
-HurghwI'