tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 10 16:56:10 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

{tuQ} (was Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions)

Alan Anderson ([email protected])

• From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
• Subject: {tuQ} (was Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions)
• Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:54:20 -0400
• In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
• References: <[email protected]>

ja' lay'tel SIvten:

> It would have been better for Okrand to gloss {tuQ} as "be dressed".

Perhaps, but then it might have seemed like a verb of quality like  
{tIn} "be big", and the potential for indicating what was being worn  
or taken off would have been gone.

We have a similar situation with the verb {Qong} "sleep", which could  
have been glossed as "be asleep" with no significant change in how we  
understand it except for the possibility for misusing it in an  
adjectival sense.  Also, it took an explicit answer from Marc Okrand  
before everyone was satisfied that the secondary "be in motion" gloss  
of the verb {vIH} "move" was intended to clarify that it was the  
*subject* changing its position, and that we shouldn't infer that it  
was a verb of quality that could be used in a {law'}/{puS}.

-- ghunchu'wI'

• References:
  • Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
    • From: [email protected]

• Prev by Date: Beware of fake pills
• Next by Date: Photoshop, Windows, Office
• Previous by thread: Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
• Next by thread: Re: KLBC: Some more clueless questions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level