tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 17 07:43:17 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: jatlh

In article <01be5a77$b7e07060$LocalHost@default>, Lieven L. Litaer
<> writes

Just my humble opinion... I'm not a grammarian or anything. ;-)

>{pagh Dajatlh}
>"You speak nothing." (= you don't speak any languages)

I'm not sure if you can extrapolate that from 'speaking nothing'. I
agree that in 'speaking a language' the verb speak / {jatlh} is
transitive. I'd be more inclined to make it explicit.

{pagh Holmey Dajatlh.}

>{pagh Dajatlh}
>"You say nothing." (= you are being silent)

[nothing] - [you say it]. Fair enough.

>{pagh bIjatlh}
>"You say PAGH." (= You said our BG's name)
>"You say NOTHING" (= You say the word "nothing")

We have the same problem in Terran languages, too. ;-) But, I don't see
how you can use a null-object prefix here, because there IS an object -
what is being said! 

The routes you have here, to *me*, seem to be:

{bIjatlhlaHbe'}         You are incapable of speaking.
                        i.e. You don't speak any languages.

{pagh Dajatlh}          You said nothing / are being silent.

{*pagh* Dajatlh}        You said "pagh" (whatever its meaning).

{bIjatlh!}              You are speaking!

*{pagh bIjatlh}         (meaningless? verb with bad prefix?)

{bIjatlhHa'}            You are saying nothing / are being silent.

{*nothing* Dajatlh}     You said "nothing".

Just my views, as I said. If charghwI', pagh or anyone else charges up
with an explanation, take their views first. :-)

Matt Johnson <>

Back to archive top level