tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 25 15:29:40 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Order of ordinals
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Order of ordinals
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:29:35 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:18:12 -0800 (PST) [email protected] wrote:
> In a message dated 3/12/99 7:13:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [email protected] writes:
>
> << This is an example we've argued about a lot. So far as we know,
> this is a mistake, unless he is using {wa'DIch} adverbially to
> mean "first seen" as opposed to "first Klingon ships". We have
> had no other confirmation that this is legitimate, however, so
> we tend to just look on it suspiciously. If anyone wants to pick
> up the hammer, however... >>
>
>
> Ordinals can be used as adverbials? ghorgh qaSpu'? How do ordinals translate
> adverbially?
I'm not sure they do. I kinda hope they don't. Meanwhile, the
only way I can understand this particular example is if ordinals
worked adverbially, so we could say things like:
"First, life honorably. Second, die with honor."
By adverbially, I mean that ordinals (-DIch} could function
somewhat like {-logh}, which is adverbial.
This is PURE speculation:
wa'DIch wejlogh lojmIt yItlhaw'.
cha'DIch HIrI'.
wejDIch yI'el.
We have exactly ONE canon example that suggests this would work.
We have no explanation and no confirming example. I am NOT
promoting this as accepted use because I feel like what we gain
is small enough and could be accomplish with an easy enough work
around:
mIw wa'DIchvaD wejlogh lojmIt yItlhaw'.
mIw cha'DIchvaD HIrI'.
mIw wejDIchvaD yI'el.
Other possibilities exist as well. The only reason I mentioned
this possible use of ordinals as adverbials is that it explains
the placement of the word in the sentence without violating the
obviously loose translation of that one example.
> T'Lod
charghwI' 'utlh