tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 02 11:58:34 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Cogito ergo sum (was RE: Numbers with pronouns)

Mark J. Reed ([email protected]) [KLI Member] 

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Christopher Doty <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was responding to the fact that, as far as I know, we don't have
> examples of a bare verb functioning as a sort of infinitive.

True, but I think it would get tiresome to have -lu' on basically
every verb in the soliloquy until the end when Hamlet finally refers
to himself.  Third person works, though I agree it would be better
with an antecedent established at the beginning (which there isn't
since {taH pagh taHbe'} is the first line).

> So, yeah.. Maybe Okrand was just flustered or something, I dunno...

Well, his original fluster-free translation had the same zero prefix
on {yIn}, so I don't think that was it.

> Or else it's Hamlet, and so has some weird grammar or something. ÂI
> just don't like it.... :((

You're not alone, but this is hardly the most questionable bit of
canon out there.  I'm not terribly fond of "The dish is always very
good when someone serves cold revenge", myself...

-- 
Mark J. Reed <[email protected]>

Back to archive top level