tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Apr 18 11:32:08 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: to' nech, 061-070

At 10:24 2002-04-18 -0400, David Trimboli wrote:
> > K: wej Hoch 'e', 'ach wa' 'ay' neH.
> > Gloss: Not yet all, but just one part.
>nuqjatlh?  What's that /'e'/ doing there?

Oops.  Supposed to be:  {wej Hoch'e', ...}
I'm assuming 1) you can put at least some noun suffixes on {Hoch}, and 2) 
that 'e' can be used to get contrastive/emphatic focus.
But ya know, now I think about this even more, I can just as easily get 
about the same idea (of incompleteness) across with just one word: 
{naQbe'}.  Or maybe {wej naQ}.
Hm, once or twice in TKD, I've seen Okrand spell {'e'} as a separate word 
even when it's not a pronoun... let's see, page 180, first boldface 
sentence, and p68, 4th boldface sentence.  But presumably those are just 
printer's errors.

> > K: potlh'e' yIghoSlI'!
> > Gloss: Approach the crucial thing.
> > Eno/Schmidt: Move towards the unimportant
>(How'd you go from "unimportant" to "crucial"?)

I have no idea.  I think I'd just been working on a bunch of other Dup that 
have "important" and for some reason read "unimportant" as "important".  I 
wonder if there's an antonym for the noun {potlh}.  {ramghach}, "triviality"?

Sean M. Burke

Back to archive top level