tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 18 07:54:44 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: targhmey

Terrence Donnelly ([email protected])

• From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: targhmey
• Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=3LK7vT1Kg95zkNaK9wZ33g/oeZxRAjoZXpaYgah6Z9PuDveZ+NxO5se/G7VINtNsFEhqrcGVIJtSrSHK3gjQNuSxfzvhiEl++EsUTXo3rj1WkRvxwjbH9YUj8qFHQSW1NGSfWbe6fHeKX1QUsKkQNm+yhwkRsx20o2dIr3pkQBk= ;
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On the other hand, these counter examples are questions, and  at that, questions asking
for information, not for confirmation.  It seems very logical to me to use {-taH} on a statement of fact about something being in a given location vs. asking where something is located,
assuming it exists at all.  
 
If you are stating something is in a location, I think you are automatically stating that it continues to be there.  If you are asking where something can be found, it would be
illogical to assert (through {-taH}) that it continues to be there.
 
I can see all sorts of nuances in the different forms:
 
{nuqDaq 'oH Qe' QaQ'e'} "Where is a good restaurant? (i.e. does such a restaurant exist
and can you tell me its location)"
 
{vaS'a'Daq 'oHtaH'a' Qe' QaQ'e'?} "Is there still a good restaurant in the Great Hall?"
 
*{nuqDaq 'oHtaH Qe' QaQ'e'?} "Where does a good restaurant continue to be?" (to
which you should reply, "You mean as opposed to the good restaurant that keeps
winking in and out of existence?")
 
{qachvamDaq 'oHtaH Qe' QaQ'e'} "There is a good restaurant in this building."
 
?{qachvamDaq 'oH Qe' QaQ'e'.} "At one time there was a good restaurant in this
building (but I don't know if it's there anymore)."

 
-- ter'eS
 
[email protected] wrote:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 10/17/2005 6:37:39 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:


> Must I remind you *again* of the counterexamples from TKD?
> 
> nuqDaq 'oH Qe' QaQ'e'
> nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'
> 
> It's NOT a rule.
> 
> -- ghunchu'wI'
> 

And even if it *is* a rule, albeit unwritten, it still has canon exceptions.

lay'tel SIvten

• References:
  • Re: targhmey
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: laj (noun)
• Next by Date: Klingon WOTD: laj (noun)
• Previous by thread: Re: targhmey
• Next by thread: Re: targhmey
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level