tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 16 21:41:55 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ambiguous locatives
[I have removed much that we disagree on.]
ja' charghwI':
>So, I put it back in your court. If the effect of {-moH} is so
>incidental that it doesn't deserve attention, show me an example
>that wins your case without using {-moH}. I simply dare you.
latlh HIvje'Daq 'Iw HIq bIr yIqang.
No, I don't mean that either literally or idiomatically. :-) It's
merely a clear example of the locative applying more to the object
of the sentence than to the subject. The translation "into" is an
appropriate one here.
Heck, even {nuqDaq yuch Dapol?} uses a locative that doesn't have a
lot to do with the location of the subject of the sentence. If you
try to argue otherwise, I'm likely to decide that *you* are the one
who is clinging to an unsupported notion without justification.
>> We'll have to disagree peacefully on this one, at least until someone
>> else manages to convince one of us to switch sides.
>
>Nice try at distorting my argument until I sound unreasonable
>and quickly declaring yourself to have the last word. These are
>not the tactics of an honorable participant in a discussion
>seeking anything like truth or understanding.
I guess you're not one to "disagree peacefully", then. :-)
-- ghunchu'wI' 'utlh