tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 21 22:34:57 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Headers. Yet again.
ja' charghwI':
>wa' ngoD buSHa' chutvetlh:
>
>DIp Qu' 'ang Segh vagh mojaq.
lugh. roD teH ngoDvam.
>ngoDvam lutlha' ngoDHom puS. mojaq poQbe' wa' "Header" DIp Segh: mojaq poQbe'
>poH ngu'bogh DIp'e'. mojaq poQbe'bogh latlh'e' wItu'be'pu'.
>
>chutHeyvam DaHon'a'?
vIHonbej. rut muj 'e' wISovchu'. Daq 'angmeH mojaq Suqbe' <naDev>, <pa'>,
<Dat> je.
>Segh vagh mojaq <-mo'> ghajchugh DIp, reH *Header* DIp 'oHtaH. not chutHeyvam
>wemlu'.
>
>chutHeyvam DaHon'a'?
vIHonqu'be', 'ach pab chut 'oH 'e' vIQubbe'. Hol wIleghbogh Del neH. Hol
SeHqu'be'. ghaytan not chutqoqvam wem mu'tlhegh lI', 'ach wemlaH mu'tlhegh
Dogh 'e' vIpIH.
>Segh vagh mojaq <-vaD> ghajchugh DIp, reH *Header* DIp 'oHtaH. not chutHeyvam
>wemlu'.
>
>chutHeyvam DaHon'a'?
vIHonqu'be', 'ach pab chut 'oH 'e' vIQubbe'...
>Segh vagh mojaq <-Daq> ghajchugh DIp, 'ej vIHmeH wot le' lo'be'lu'chugh, reH
>*Header* DIp 'oHtaH. not chutHeyvam wemlu'. vIHmeH wot le' lo'lu'DI', Segh
>vagh mojaq <-Daq> ghajlaH *Direct Object*.
>
>chutHeyvam DaHon'a'?
tlhoy Qatlh chutHeyvam. tlhoS vIvoqlaHbe'. 'ej Hol wIleghbogh Del neH.
Hol SeHbe'.
>QapmeH mojaq <-Daq> rur mojaq <-vo'>.
>
>chutHeyvam DaHon'a'?
vIHonqu'be', 'ach...
>latlhmeyvam Dabe' mojaq <-'e'>. Dat narghlaH mojaq <-'e'> ghajbogh DIp'e'.
>
>chutHeyvam DaHon'a'?
chut 'oHchugh, ramqu' chutHomvam. pagh nuja'.
>qatlh chutmeyHeyvam DIbuSHa'nIS? jISuv vIneHbe'. qavuvHa' vIneHbe'. qamoghmoH
>vIneHbe'. meqlIj vIyajbe'. jImul vIneHbe'. vIt vIHub vIneH neH.
chutHeyvam vIbuSHa'be'. vIbuSbe' neH.
>Holna' wIbuSHa' DaneHlaw' 'ej pab Delbogh paq neH wInuD DaneHlaw'. taQ
>HelIj, 'ach vIlaj. jatlhlu'chugh <<munej Dujvo'>> jIQoy 'ej jIghoHbe'taH
>DaneHlaw'. chaq lugh. botbe' pab. Dap, 'ach bIvbe'. lughlaw' SoHvaD. [You, the
>beneficiary, are apparently right.]
qayajmoHmeH, DIvI' Hol vIlo'nISlaw' 'e' yIlajneS.
It's a "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" thing. The phrase is
perfectly grammatical, but it is also perfectly nonsensical. Similarly, I
believe that <raS jatlhmoH quSvaD> breaks no rules of grammar, even while I
think it is complete nonsense. It's worse than <raS jatlhmoH quS> only in
degree, not in essence.
It seems you refuse to accept any distinction between syntax and semantics,
preferring to lump both of them under the "grammar" label. I (and SuStel,
I believe) would rather consider grammar to be the domain of syntax, with
semantics and meaning being a separate category. Grammar defines what
sentences are legal, without having anything to say about what sentences
are meaningful.
To work with your beach analogy, it looks like you've noticed that nobody
ever wears street shoes on the sand, and you want to use that observation
to justify banning shoes on the sand entirely. Never mind that it doesn't
make sense to do it in the first place; you want to make it illegal. I
think that's excessive. In my opinion, it's like passing a law saying
automobiles are not permitted to drive under the ice of a frozen lake,
because you have never seen them there, you never expect to see them there,
and you somehow think it's an important traffic rule that should be
impressed on new student drivers.
-- ghunchu'wI'