tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 24 13:27:52 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: All of us... again
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: All of us... again
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:27:24 GMT
Pardon my breaking in with English, but perhaps I can be most clear and
expidicious on this issue by doing so.
The word {tlhIH} DOES mean "all of you" simply because if I'm speaking and you
are listening, that makes me first person and you second person, and if I'm
referring to second person plural, that means all the people in the second
person. There can't be some people in the second person who are excluded from
{tlhIH}. Anyone excluded would be in the THIRD person. All the people I'm
talking about are the same people I'm talking to.
This division of persons is not as useful for {maH}, since the people I'm
talking to and the people I'm talking about with {maH} don't have to be the
same people. First person plural always includes the person speaking and anyone
else grouped with the person speaking. This may or may not include the second
person and it may even include people the second person considers to be third
person.
Will
> >We've discussed how to render the idiomatic "all of us" and "all of them"
> >before, with no consensus. (This is not a problem in the 2nd person, as we
> >have {tlhIH} "all of you, you all".) IIRC there are three factions: ?{Hoch
> >maH}, ?{maH Hoch}, and a few who even suggest using {Hoch} alone with a 1st
> >person plural prefix:
>
> nuqjatlh? <tlhIH> lo'lu'DI', ghom naQ ja'nISbe'lu'. ghom ja'nISlu' neH.
>
> TKD, p. 51:
> tlhIH you (plural)
>
> yItu': "you all" bIHbe' mu'mey.
>
> ghommeyvaD qIv vIwavchugh, jIjatlh: <<ghom wa' tlhIH, 'ej ghom cha' tlhIH,
> 'ej ghom wej tlhIH.>> qIv naQ vIja'be'. wa' 'ay' vIja', ghIq latlh 'ay'
> vIja', ghIq latlh 'ay' vIja'.
>
> latlh "canon" tu'lu''a'?
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>
>