tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Aug 29 17:22:11 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? :-)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: qatlh Qapbe'choH DaH De'wI'mey? :-)
- Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:42:40 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On 27 Aug 1999 17:09:19 -0000 [email protected] wrote:
> We really have to find some way, even if just slang (sanctioned, though),
> of disambiguating {wej}. It's really exasperating. I wouldn't be
> surprised if Klingons would say, informally, something like {*mI' wej
> tlhInganpu' vIlegh}, even though it's ungrammatical, in case of real
> potential for misunderstanding.
Another idea for this that looks Okrandian would be to
differentiate it with sentence fragments and other tools which
would make the other meaning nearly impossible, thusly:
tlhInganpu' vIlegh; wej tlhInganpu'.
vs.
tlhInganpu vInej 'ach wej vay' vIlegh.
> >> lughbe'. qay'bej.
> >>
> >> vaj latlh chamwI' vISam. ghu' wIja'chuq.
> >
> >You can't use the prefix {wI-} with the suffix {-chuq}. By all
> >indications, {ja'chuq} is not a root verb, despite its entry in
> >the dictionary. It is almost certainly {ja'} plus {-chuq}. A
> >better way to say this is: {maja'chuq. ghu' wIqel.}
>
> No arguments... But I note that this very question (can we say {?paq
> wIja'chuq} has been on my (at least) list of questions for MO for a *LONG*
> time (I'm talking 4-5 years). I don't know that there are "indications"
> one way or another, aside from the usual tendency (which I approve) to
> presume that compound-looking words are in fact compounds and not relexed
> roots.
It may have been mentioned when he revealed that {lo'laH} was an
actual, separate word root. It was certainly a golden
opportunity.
> >> De'wI''a'meyDaq nejwI'mey DIchu'. Qapbe'qu'
> >> nejwI'mey. qay' latlh Doch!
> >
> >We so frequently use {latlh} as if it were a special word that
> >is an adjective preceeding another noun that we forget that this
> >is not the case. {latlh} is a noun. {latlh Doch} can almost
> >ALWAYS be replaced by {latlh} alone. The only time you really
> >want to put a noun after {latlh} is if that following noun gives
> >you some information that a lone {latlh} would not give you,
> >like in reply to "Do you want another blood wine, or another
> >blood pie?"
>
> Did we ever find out for absolute certain that {latlh} in fact precedes
> the noun?
Voragh?
> >> leQmey waHmeH, jabbI'ID mach DIngeH 'e' wIwuq. jabbI'ID puS polHa' DaH.
> >> mapIHchoH.
> >>
> >> Hemey lo'bogh De' DInuD.
> >
> >Interesting. You used the plural suffix to indicate that you are
> >examining the paths and not the data. Clever. I've never seen
> >this done before, but it works for me.
>
> For me too. Though you don't HAVE to disambiguate all the time. Even if
> nothing in the grammar tells you the head noun, often the context will.
Still, I'd hate to carelessly yell, {qama' 'uchlI'bogh 'avwI'
yIHoH!} and then see the warrior whom I'm addressing shoot the
guard... Consequences of this kind of sloppiness constitute good
cause to be as unambiguous as possible.
> Just some musings...
>
> ~mark
charghwI'