tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 06 07:19:00 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: jISoprupchoHlaHbej (HolQeD #7/2 np5)
- From: "Holtej" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: jISoprupchoHlaHbej (HolQeD #7/2 np5)
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 10:18:07 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> The {jISoprupchoHlaHbej} (= - PP:I/- V:eat VS2:[ready|prepared]_of_beings
> VS3:change VS5:be_able VS6:undoubtedly) example that HolQeD #7/2
> p5 quotes as
> ambiguous, seems to me to be the result of another case of Marc
> Okrand trying
> too hard to shoehorn the world of all possible meanings into
> rigid classes. It
> would have been easier if more of the verb suffixes had been classed as
> rovers.
And it might be easier if we could use verbs as adverbials ("drunkenly", in
particular, I remember you wanted a couple of years ago), or if bare verbs
could be used as nouns, etc. As Krankor and other like to point out,
there's nothing wrong with ambiguity in language. We tolerate it quite
comfortably in our respective native languages, and there's no reason to
worry about it in Klingon, either. As charghwI', as well as I, like to say,
learn how to effectively use the tools that the language provides, rather
than wishing for the tools that it lacks.
jIqej 'e' vIHechbe'bej. reH pab DachoH DaneH, 'ej reH jaS pIjangbe':
ghaytan Hol Dalo'Ha', qoj Hol Dayajchu'be'.
--Holtej