tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 10 14:04:50 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC cheng Sa' may'bom bom mu' cha'DIch
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC cheng Sa' may'bom bom mu' cha'DIch
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:04:04 EST
jImIS:
>Parentheses in Okrand's translations tend to confuse me.
>AFAIK, he never explicitly explained them. qar'a'?
>So do the parentheses mean that the contents of the parentheses is optional,
>or that they must be used as the subject, or that there must not be any
subject?
>For example:
>
>bIv break (rules)
>
>Does this mean that "rules" or an equivalent noun must be the object (e.g.,
>{chut vIbIv})? Or does it mean that there should never be any object (e.g.,
>{jIbIv})? Or does it mean that you can decide whether to have an object?
jang veS joH:
>the parenthisis generally give a guide line where one word is unclear in a
>lone standing. In you example, bIv is specific to a type of thing to break.
>
>In other words, the rules aren't really broknen in to seperate pieces,
rather
>they were not followed. By the parenthisis being around the subject word,
it
>would seem to insist, at least to me, that this word is inappropriate to use
>for a synonym for words like shatter or discribing the verb for having
>something come apart. A subject and object would be required as each
>sentence varies.
So you're saying that (using my example again) {jIbIv} would be ungrammatical
because {bIv} *must* be transitive?
- DujHoD