tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 08 21:18:49 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chaq tugh jImej.
ja' charghwI':
>These recent discussions have presented the idea that, as a
>prime example {targhvaD Qa'Hom vISopmoH} means "I cause-to-eat
>the Qa'Hom for the benefit of the targ." The relationship
>between "cause-to-eat" and {Qa'Hom} is ambiguous to the point
>that without context, one can never tell whether the {Qa'Hom} is
>doing the eating or being eaten. The grammar is lacking any tool
>to make this clear. Only context can determine which is the case.
For this particular phrase, that is perhaps correct. But there are
other phrases that can carry the desired meaning without ambiguity.
There are *many* other phrases that can be used. The language has
a multitude of tools to make clear who is eating whom.
>That completely undermines my efforts at gaining anything
>approaching a native understanding of how to use the words well
>to express meaning. As minor as this point apparently seems to
>many people, the effect on me is that I want to burn or delete
>every dictionary I have, unsubscribe from the list and Okrand's
>NEWS group, and except for sustaining good friendships with good
>and interesting people I've met over the years working with this
>language, otherwise forget I ever saw TKD.
nuqjatlh?! I feel terrible to have been a major catalyst in this
urge of yours. I've always seen our debates as akin to a couple
of sparring partners keeping each other in shape. I regret very
much causing any lasting damage.
>I didn't work so hard to learn this language so that I would
>discover that I can't clearly express whether that Qa'Hom is
>eating or being eaten. Maybe Okrand thinks it is cool to
>immitate natural languages which have exactly that kind of
>ambiguity built in. Bully for him. I hope he enjoys turning that
>concept around in his head.
You do know how to avoid ambiguity when necessary. Please don't
use it as an excuse to withdraw from such an interesting community
of people.
>But it completely disengages me from interest in the language.
>
>Completely.
>
>Not almost completely.
>
>Completely.
>
>So, I've lost all my momentum working on the language.
>
>pItlh
chay'?!
Qo'! gholonqa'Qo'!
bIDajbej. bIQubchu'. Holmaj DaSaHba'pu'.
tlhIngan Hol Daqelrupbe'choH 'e' raDlaH'a' wa' DochHom ramqu'?
va. lotvam vIqaSmoHlaw'. jIQoSqu'.
-- ghunchu'wI'