tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 08 19:44:19 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions

Doq ([email protected])



bImeqchu' SoH je, 'ach mu' <<Hotlh>> yIqelqa'. qatlh "Hotlh (v):  
project, put on screen" qonbe'?

I think it is a matter of style. A very odd style, perhaps, but it's  
all we have. If I were Okrand, interested in getting the most use  
possible out of the fewest words, I'd probably also develop an odd  
style, in my attempt to give words a wide range of function, while  
still wanting them to have specific meaning when necessary.

Likely, he wants {tuQ} to be used both transitively and  
intransitively, but for my nickel, it makes more sense to stick to  
intransitive so that the -moH glosses make more sense without the  
icky grammar that apparently bothers more people than just me. The  
transitive use of {tuQ} simply is not necessary, given we can use  
{-'e'} to turn what we are tempted to make a direct object into a  
topic instead. It gives the same meaning without the icky grammar.

More flavor, less filling.

Doq

On Jun 8, 2007, at 4:37 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:

> ja' Doq:
>> Similarly, the definition for {tuQ}: "wear (clothes)" might simply
>> have the parenthetical to differentiate this verb from all the other
>> meanings of the word "wear", like {QopmoH}: "wear out". There's
>> nothing really compelling about choosing "clothes" as direct object
>> in this definition, and it conflicts with the definitions of the
>> related forms of {tuQ} he gives us.
>
> majQa'!  bImeqchu'.  chopon.
> munuQtaH wa' ghIlab ghew neH:  qatlh "tuQ (v): wear clothes" qonbe'?
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
>
>






Back to archive top level