tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Feb 28 22:50:52 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Dap naQ

In a message dated 2/25/1999 12:36:34 PM US Mountain Standard Time, writes:

<< > Can we translate {Dap naQ} as "utter nonsense"?
 Why disregard the more obvious {Dapna'}?

Good job, Holtej!!!!

But, did your reader leave off the introduction to this nonsense?  Right at
the top of the posting I had said that this was to be nonsense with the
purpose of pointing out that simply taking words at "face value" from the
dictionary leads to this kind of problems.  Every mistake here is deliberate.

I do not blame you for not wanting to read further.  You got the point without
finishing the nonsense.

As to {Dapna'}, I agree.  Apparently, so does MO.  In the only conversation I
had with him he said two things:  He was not ready to comment on which verbs
do not need 
{-Daq} constructions; and, {-na'} is the way to express that someone or
something is "complete," "real," "definite."  That was at qep'a' loSDIch two
years ago.


Back to archive top level