Re: KLBC cheng Sa' may'bom bom mu' cha'DIch

[J242110559@aol.com]

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