tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 02 07:08:40 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Numbers with pronouns
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Seruq <[email protected]> wrote:
> jIQub vaj jIH.
>
> It's not canon.
It's pretty much anti-canon. The existence of the verb {taH} "go on,
endure, continue" (and the real-world context which created it) is a
very strong indication that one does not use pronouns to mean "to be"
in the sense of "to exist".
> I suppose it could be labelled as poetic license. But how would you do that
> sentence?
(SuStel does it exactly the way you did. I'll let him explain why.)
Some have argued that {jIQub} is enough, as it automatically implies
that I am a real entity, but that's kind of a cop-out. I'd probably
try to be explicit and say {jIQubmo' jIngebbe'ba'}.
-- ghunchu'wI'