tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 16 14:44:16 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: to' nech, 047: {paghDaq yIghurchoHlI'}

From: <>

> I don't see any problem with vs3 and vs7 being together.  Sure some may be
> bit weird for a particular verb.

As I indicated, or tried to, the problem is not one of grammaticality, it is
one of meaning.

> Imagine a child playing with a light switch, chu'qa'taH,

This is either "He continuously resumes activating it," or "He resumes
continuously activating it."  If one of those is what you mean, then this
works.  If what you mean is "He resumes activating it," then the /-taH/ is

> or he's pretending to
> send a secret code and he's going to stop after 50 times, chu'qa'lI'.

This means the same thing as above, but for the "definite stopping point"
part.  But if /-taH/ is found to be an incorrect meaning for your context,
then so is /-lI'/.  You can't have "definite stopping point" without

> -choHtaH & -choHlI', hmm...
> SImchoHtaH De'wI', the computer continuously starts calculating.  There is
> glitch and it keeps resetting.

Right.  Or its startup procedure never completes.

jIqettaH.  jIDoy'choH.  jIleS.  jIqetqa'.

That's not /qet/ "one more time," that's /qet/ "started up again."  In this
particular case, you COULD say /jIqetqa'taH/, because you're resuming the
action of /qettaH/.

Stardate 2291.0

Back to archive top level