tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 23 06:56:41 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 09:56:39 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
I already want to apologize. Being somewhat overwhelmed by the
volume of messages that have accumulated during a couple days
away from the list, and having seen several twising the word
{jat} all kinds of ways, I overreacted.
Hagh qoHpu' HeghtaHvIS SuvwI'pu'.
charghwI' 'utlh
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:46:02 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
"William H. Martin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
Will Martin
UVA ITC Computer Support Services