tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 23 11:39:52 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: RE: KLBC: summer's in, school's out
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: RE: KLBC: summer's in, school's out
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:40:22 -0700
jatlh charghwI':
> Pardon me, but I just can't stop myself from commenting.
qay'be'. jIjangta'mo' janglaH Hoch. chovnatlh pojchugh yab law', vaj ghojbej
yab law'.
> What exactly is a correct error? Can you make an error
> correct? If so, then I guess that would be a correct
> error, but somehow, I think it would be more appropriate
> to say something like:
>
> rIn DuSaQ vaj ghojwI' Qagh vIQaghHa'moHta'.
The essential problem with this is that I really don't think the verb <Qagh>
can work like this. Removing the <-moH> for clarity, you have <... QaghHa'
ghojwI' Qagh>. Is an error capable of erring, or being mistaken, or of
un-erring? I am quite sure the student can <Qagh> or <QaghHa'>, and I am
also quite sure the error cannot.
> Either that, or it would be fine to say {ghojwI'
> vIlughmoHta'}, since it is the students that one causes
> to be correct.
DaH maQochbe'chu'.
> One cannot cause an error to be correct, after all,
> since once it is correct, it is no longer an error.
> Right?
If I write 2+2=5, and realize I have screwed up, I would probably call the
whole scribble <Qaghvetlh> or <QaghwIj>. If I cross out the 5 and write in a
4, I don't think I would have any problem saying <DaH lugh Qaghvetlh>. That
may just be my English-centric brain making sense out of nonsense; we can't
know for certain how a Klingon would think of it.
jatlh DloraH:
> Now that the grammarian has gone over it...
>
> >rIn DuSaQ vaj ghojwI'Hom vIlughmoHta'.
>
> would one be correcting the student or the student's errors?
>
> I'm am curious about your reasoning for using -Hom ?
I didn't know what kind of students the poster had, and I didn't ask.
> rIn DuSaQ vaj ghojwI' Qagh vIlughnISmoHbe'.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian