tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 29 14:20:27 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: DaH jIjeSqa'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: DaH jIjeSqa'
- Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:19:26 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
bIlughba'. jIQubchu'be'pu'. Basically, I was trying to make some
kind of sense out of the original statement, and if the person
making the statement was uncertain, then it was gibberish
because the statement conflicts with itself. Unfortunately, the
original statement is lost here and I don't have the
determination to go back and find it. There are, unfortunately,
limits to how much I care about this example. It is definitely
stretching the comparative structure beyond its original intent
and basically is broken. I was trying to help salvage it and I
failed.
charghwI'
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:29:52 CST Marc Ruehlaender
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ja' charghwI':
> > The statement was basically, "I know more than I apparently
> > know." I can only interpret that to mean that you are keeping
> > some of your knowledge secret, because if you mean "I know more
> > than *I* thought I knew", then it doesn't make any sense to use
> > {-law'} to say, "than I apparently knew" because appearances are
> > judged from the outside.
> >
> how do you reconcile this position with the statement in TKD, p. 40:
>
> "this suffix [-law'] expresses any uncertainty _on_the_speakers_part_"
> (emphasis mine)
>
> ?
>
>
> Marc Ruehlaender
> aka HomDoq
> [email protected]