tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 15 12:10:40 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: ba'

> > > Klingon, if /ba'/ means occupying the chair, what's the difference
> > > between /ba'/ and /ba'taH/?
> >
> > >  None that I can see.
> >
> > /-taH/ emphasizes the continuation, telling the reader it is not
> /-lI'/.
> Umm, no, the purpose of /-taH/ is not to say it's not /-lI'/.

I know I'm not good at explaining my thoughts, and its partially due to the 
fact that I'm sometimes too brief.  But I felt like screeming some four letter 

I am not saying that -taH says its not -lI'.

> Personally, I don't think /ba'/ necessarily means continuous occupation of a
> chair, couch, etc.  I think it means occupation of a chair, etc., for an
> unspecified amount of time, maybe an instant, maybe a day, whatever.

You just gave the same %^$^ definition I gave a couple messages back, except I 
didn't bother to specify that the time is unspecified.  Of course this verb 
doesn't include the time; what verb does?

> /ba'taH/ means said occupation for a period that is expressly continuous --
> it's definitely not instantaneous, and the continuous nature of the
> sitting is important.

Well, &^%*, you just answered your own question!

> /ba'choH/ means the beginning of said occupation.  The sitting will be
> longer than instantanous, but there's no talk about it being
> "continuous"
> (it's implied, but not very strongly).
> /ba'pu'/ means the act of sitting is completed.  Whether that means
> the
> instantaneous act of sitting, or a continuous act, is unspecified.
> I'm not interested in talking about /-ta'/ and /-lI'/, because the
> "intentional" part of the definitions have no bearing on this
> discussion;
> they are in all other ways identical to /-pu'/ and /-taH/.

We're arguing on the same side of the issue.  We're both saying the same thing.


Back to archive top level