tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 15 15:29:39 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'aH tIQ
From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> But see, they're the same thing in this case. Otherwise, you do have a
> serious issue with sentence fragments. We have to identify what
> /wanI'vetlh/ *is*. Is it the event of an angry mob thinking or being able
> to think? If so, why use /-chugh/? The event is not "if a mob can
> think". In that case, it would be "QublaH ghom'a'. vaj qubbej
> wanI'vetlh" "Mobs can think. Then that event is rare."
Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. You're saying that /wanI'vetlh/
is referring to the entire phrase /QublaHchugh ghom'a'/. /wanI'vetlh/ is
not /'e'/. You would be expected to work out that "if a crowd can think" is
not an event, but a crowd thinking might be one.
The answer to "why use /-chugh/" is "why not?" /wanI'vetlh/ need not refer
to an exact phrase used previously.
> I think DloraH's correct, thought, the intent was to refer to the previous
> sentiment, of looting and public disorder. "If angry mobs could think,
> those events (the looting and rioting) would be rare."
I agree that the sentence seems to have been taken out of context now.
SuStel
Stardate 3287.6