tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 02 17:53:35 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: -law'
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: -law'
- Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 20:53:25 -0400 (EDT)
ghunchu'wI' 'utlh:
>TKD says that Type 6 verb suffixes "...show how sure the speaker is about
>what is being said." It specifically mentions {-law'}: "This suffix
>expresses any uncertainty on the speaker's part..."
But the description for /-be'/ also says it negates the concept it
follows, and yet we've seen it extend a bit further than that.
What do you think of a statement like /DaSovbej/? Does this
mean "You certainly know it" (which is how most people seem to read
it)? Or, strictly going by the rules, is it "I am certain that you
know it"? Perhaps there is not much difference.
Also, what do you think of pagh's example from canon:
pagh:
>One canon example of <-law'> from a Skybox card is: <puvlaHbogh Duj
>ngabmoHlaw' So'wI'>. In this case, the speaker (i.e. Klingon Science Guy who
>writes captions for trading cards) is obviously not specifically qualifying
>the statement from his perspective.
In this case, the Klingon Science Guy is obviously not saying
that *he* is uncertain that the cloaking device would make ships
disappear. He *is* certain - certain that the cloaking device would
make the ship *apparently* disappear to whomever was watching it.
At least, that's how I would read the sentence.
Let's come up with an artificially contrived example. Suppose
a Klingon adult is showing a child the wonders of science.
He shows her a /ghewHom/ through a microscope. Is it proper for
him to say, /tInlaw'/ "It appears to be big"? Or is it
wrong in this instance, since he knows for a fact that the
/ghewHom/ is actually very small?
--
De'vID
--
tlhIngan-Hol FAQ and unsubscribe instructions:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to [email protected]
-------------------------------
Beam to http://www.StarTrek.com
The official site of the Star Trek universe