tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 23 06:46:05 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qama'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qama'
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:46:02 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
WILL PEOPLE PLEASE GIVE UP ON THE IDEA THAT {jatwI'mey} means
anything but "multiple things not capable of language which
mumble" [which is gibberish, since mumbling usually implies an
ability to use language] or "mumblers scattered all about"? The
{-wI'} suffix is not a general nominalizer. It ONLY indicates
the entity doing the action of the verb.
The word just isn't that interesting, but the thread goes on
forever, most of which misinterpret the word.
charghwI' 'utlh
Sheesh.
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 11:05:59 -0800 (PST) david joslyn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Lieven L. Litaer wrote:
>
> jIghItlh:
> > > Is it just me, or is there some significance in the fact that all the
> > > "verbs of speaking" begin with "ja"?
>
> ja' muHwI'
> > I don't know why, but it's true.
> > Read KGT page 30. MO names {jat} as slang for "mumble". Others are ja',
> > jatlh, jach, and jaw I remeber.
>
> Wait...does this mean <jatmey> could also mean "mumblings"?
> No, wait...that would be <jatwI'mey>. Oh well.
>
>
> quljIb
>
Will Martin
UVA ITC Computer Support Services