tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 19 11:09:33 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: [KLBC] RHOTS



[email protected] on behalf of [email protected] wrote:
> The definition for this verb (lo'laH - be valuable) seems to be a bit
> misleading, and has confused me in the past.  In section 4.2.10, page 46 of
> TKD, {lo'laH} is actually used:
>   vIlo'laHbe' - they are useless to me, [literally] "I cannot use them"

I tend to prefer to use {lo'} this way, but there is canon to indicate that 
{lo'laH} is a verb distinct from {lo'}:

leghlaHchu'be'chugh mIn lo'laHbe' taj jej.
A sharp knife is nothing without a sharp eye.  (TKW p. 169)
(Literally, "If the eye imperfectly can see, a sharp knife is worthless.)

In fact, this sentence uses the separate TKD entry {lo'laHbe'}, but note that 
{taj} is the subject here.  If this were simply {lo'} being used, it'd have to 
be something like

leghlaHchu'be'chugh mIn taj jej lo'laHbe' vay'.

>  So the object of {lo'laH} is the thing that is valuable/useable, and the
> subject is who can use it.  This makes sense; the gloss given in the word
> list is merely inaccurate.

Personally, I think this is what happened: Okrand wrote that gloss with the 
sentence on TKD p. 46 in mind, and the thing of worth was meant to be the 
object.  Then he fell into the same trap that everyone else does when he wrote 
TKW, making {lo'laH} a new verb, and the new verb of course because proven.

>    Speaking of {-lu'} and {-laH}, note also that both syllables of {Qapla'}
> can now be analyzed: "Success is possible," or "One is able to win."

Ooooooooh.

> -Tad Stauffer
> {pagh wagh Sagh Qagh wagh Dogh}
> "Nothing costs more than an error."

Ha!

-- 
SuStel
qoH vuvbe' SuStel
Stardate 97718.7



Back to archive top level