tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 01 08:29:39 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: loDpu'

On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:57:47 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson 
<> wrote:

> [naDev law' loDpu'.  loD law' nIv be' law' QIv.]
> ja' SuStel:
> >Wow!  That's an amazing sentence!
> :: mon ghunchu'wI'; chunwI' rur. ::
> chay' Duyay'moH mu'tlheghwIj?
> ja' K'ryntes:
> >Will you explain it to me?  I got the jist of it but I don't understand
> >the construction.
> It's a straighforward comparative construction.  TKD section 6.6 explains
> the {A Q law' B Q puS} formula.  Since I was already using the verb {law'}
> in the Q slot, I decided not to use {law'} and {puS} themselves as the
> opposites, and I went with one of the alternatives that TKW tells us is
> sometimes used "as a form of word play" (pages 178-180).

That's KGT, not TKW, for anyone seeking to actually look that 
up. I also think "straightforward" is a bit of a strong 
reference. Yes, it works. It works according to the description 
in KGT. I understood it when I saw it, but I would expect a lot 
of people to not understand it. KGT has more text than TKD, so 
fewer people read it. I have not even finished reading all of 
it, and likely won't for some time yet, so I don't immediately 
expect everyone to understand things written depending upon 
having read and remembered something from it.
> -- ghunchu'wI'

charghwI' 'utlh

Back to archive top level