tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 05 06:25:54 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: {rutlh} cha'DIch

Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar) ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol ghojwI']

Am 03.11.2003 23:08:44, schrieb Steven Boozer <[email protected]>:

>That's not quite right.  

>While the pronoun {'oH} has a specific noun as 
>antecedent (e.g. {mu'}, {pong}, {ngoDvam}, etc.), 
That's what I was think about, because I think that what was written first {'ach nuqvo', chay' ghap DaSov'a'?} sounds like in english 
roughly translated: " wherefrom do you know that fact?"

Okay, I agree with everything you've said, but I still think there is a difference here:

>SIvten's question can now be re-written:
>
>   {rutlh} 'oH <<wheel>>'e' 'e' vIHarbe' ...  'ach chay' 'e' DaSov?
>   I didn't believe that "wheel" is {rutlh}... But how did you know that?

This is "How did you know that I didn't believe that "wheel" is {rutlh}?"
But not "How did you know that "wheel" is {rutlh}?"

(At least to me. Other opinions around?)

As you said,
>the pronoun {'e'} refers 
>to the previous idea or sentence as a whole

I see the idea/sentence "didntbelieve?that...wheel" as a whole.

> - whether it's in the same 
>sentence, a previous sentence or even if it's a sentence said by someone 
>else - as long is the context is clear.

I think the context was not clear enough, at least to me. ;-)

When I keep thinking about it, I believe the english is also ambiguous:
>   I didn't believe that "wheel" is {rutlh}... But how did you know that?

Quvar.

Back to archive top level