tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Aug 08 17:43:37 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: In Which Qov Fixes Foolish Mistakes Made By Lt. Cdr. Barrows
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: In Which Qov Fixes Foolish Mistakes Made By Lt. Cdr. Barrows
- Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 15:29:48 -0400
From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
>---"Lt. Cdr. Sarah Barrows" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Qov wrote:
>> >---"Lt. Cdr. Sarah Barrows" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >'IH maS. pem Hov wov law' maS wov puS, vaj maS wIbejlaH.
>> qaQochbe'chu'. maS vIbejDI', jIDoghchoH. 'e' vIjatlhpu''a'? :)
>
>It's not necessarily true that you may say ?/qaQochbe'/ for "I agree
>with you" The person agreed with isn't the object of the verb, the
>way the definition is given. If /Qochbe'/ said "agree, agree with
>(someone)," then you'd know you could do it. FOr now I treat /Qoch/
>like /Qong/ and say that if it has an object, I don't know what it is.
>It could be the topic agreed on, for example.
Ah, but we're dealing with the prefix trick again, aren't we? You can say
{qajatlh} even though the direct object of {jatlh} is not the person you
agree with.
Now perhaps some people are starting to see why I didn't like the prefix
trick before it was "canonized." The potential for abuse and vagueness is
very high.
>And you do know better than to use /'e' jatlh/ with the object being
>the words said. You meant /jIjatlhpu''a'/ without /'e'/.
Not to mention that she put a {-pu'} on what she though was the second verb
in a sentence as object construction . . .
SuStel
Stardate 98603.2