tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 29 19:52:09 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: vIjeylu'be'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: RE: vIjeylu'be'
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:54:14 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:44:18 -0400 TPO <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Now, does this mean "Not everybody refuses"?
> >
> >Not even close. Realise that there is no such thing as a
> >negative suffix for nouns. {HochHa'} is meaningless. {Hoch'a'}
> >means "The Great Everyone" or "The Specially Signficant
> >Everything". {pagh luQo'} means "They refuse nothing."}
> >
> >What you have chosen to say is actually a little tricky. I'd
> >probably cast it something like:
> >
> >Qo' 'op nuv 'ach Qo'be' Hoch.
> >
> >"Some people refuse, but everyone does not refuse." I can't
> >immediately think of a shorter, clear way to say that.
>
> That sound like the second line contradicts the first.
I considered that possibility, but did not consider that to be
necessarily the case, given the long, drawn out argument I lost
where there are apparently cases backed up by canon where Okrand
has used a negation to negate something larger than the
immediately preceeding syllable. I thought that given the
combination in one sentence, it would still be understood.
> KGT gives us HochHom - most
>
> Qo' 'op nuv. Qo'be' HochHom
But now, you are modifying the meaning of the original. You are
saying, "Some people refuse. Most do not refuse." I see that as
a quite different statement than "Not everybody refuses." You
are assuming a majority refuses. That may be the case, but we'd
have to ask the person what their intent was for the original
sentence.
Perhaps we should get simpler:
Ouch. I just realized that all this time, we've been using an
exclammation as if it were a verb.
I obviously need to catch up on my sleep.
lajQo' vay'.
Better?
> DloraH
charghwI' 'utlh