RE: KLBC: Undoubtedly continue to..

["Klingon Honour" <klingon_honour@hotmail.com>]

>>jatlhpu' ngghoy: 1. How does one say "You (!) undoubtedly continue to 
>>cause to be difficult to her on this situation" ?
*The exclamation marks the item to be emphasised.

>jatlhpu' pagh: I'm not sure I understand the English . . .

mu’meywIjmo' qamISmoHpu'bogh jIQoS

chaq mu'tlheghvam QaQ law' 'e' QaQ puS.. "You certainly are being difficult 
(to her) about this!"

>jatlhpu' Mark: I think what you're asking for here is how to get something 
>which uses the meanings in the suffixes in the "wrong" order.

majQa'
This was exactly my point Mark! I was pondering about expressions with a 
line of suffixes that follow in a different order to the way that I mean. I 
thought that if the positioning of rovers is significant, what about the 
rest of the suffixes and the possible ordering of other surrounding elements 
like adverbs and/or a 'conjunction clause as a relative clause' all in the 
one sentence?

Mark's guideline of:
1) suffix-meanings *usually* apply in (roughly) the order given.. and
you should try other sensible orderings that make more sense, if the default 
one doesn't work.

This makes sense but then I can seen the possibility of ambiguity like one 
of the earlier examples that I gave:
{qarchu'be'} or {qarbe'chu'}?

The actual written sentence was: qarchu'be'
However, I felt the context indicated the meaning of "(this is) clearly not 
true" - possible, especially if one grants that the writer could have made a 
common slip up and left the be' in the "default" position on the end of the 
string.

But then again, maybe it really DID mean "It is not clearly/completely
accurate" (pagh) or colloqially "That's not quite right." (Alan) and it was 
I who misinterpreted it.

If context in tlhIngan Hol still leaves ambiguity, what have we left?

ngghoy


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com