tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 29 07:54:54 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: "rule reversal"?

MorphemeAddict ([email protected])

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: "rule reversal"?
• Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:53:56 EST

In a message dated 12/29/2006 9:37:56 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> >I somehow reversed those two rules in my head.  New question -- how to say
> >"I reversed those two rules."  ?  :)
> 
>    cha' chutHomvetlh vIyoymoHpu'
>    "I've inverted those two rules"
> 
> using {chut} "law" + {-Hom} and the verb {yoy} "be upside down" + {-moH}, 
> which is as close as we have AFAIK. 

The meaning of the original is that the two rules were swapped, each one 
substituted for the other.  I don't think inversion carries that meaning very 
well.  Inversion sounds rather like each rule was somehow inverted, e.g., by 
switching the premise and conclusion of the rule.  
This is switching, too, but the switching here takes place within the rule, 
so inverting still applies here, but not in the larger original case.

I think the word {tam} (exchange, substitute) works much better here:
 
       cha' chutHomvetlh vItampu'
       "I've exchanged those two rules"

lay'tel SIvten

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: "rule reversal"?
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: "rule reversal"?
• Next by Date: Re: Beowulf tatlhlu'ta'?
• Previous by thread: Purpose Clauses (was Re: "conjunction"?)
• Next by thread: Re: "rule reversal"?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level