tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 02 12:21:30 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Cogito ergo sum (was RE: Numbers with pronouns)
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Cogito ergo sum (was RE: Numbers with pronouns)
- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:19:11 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gb7lUu8om5CM9gplp2Nb9Hk5u9CsSrGfOTz4x+/vJdg=; b=pYCJYpX/Jbc7wRY4iczcSZwvBm4LNRqozhWsG8IQM4X15NZev9FgeJgVsHo1djLo/z iOuJQey6gT32x54fi7QXNIbuTyJ2uIfdauvtdOJFQ4CXaJfGmZc2pnnMHsPgzK7fbYIi LPacc8XSih+aFByp4vubnAUPZ/khXbvnuo1PU=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=pwRbU/xneAo1mYGeoIN0TQ/dt7X7RzLp18WnvwZU32F2kzbWhVF9a7lzrMX06VJFy/ rqt9qtCP1CBdjCvghwPP3ZjtZFCA7NN9hPyZvt+giPi2cTnkX/PyUZ+Kbs1z3CEkIlvI EDAQsuo8hB/pdf9aeYx5o6khFZvQqEcoGa3e4=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <C305E6BD33E2654DAE1F8F403247B6A6011382A88282@EVS02.ad.uchicago.edu> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:51, Mark J. Reed <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
Well, it might be tiresome, but if the grammar calls for it...
Putting -ed on the end of a bunch of English verbs might be tiresome,
too, but if the stuff happened in the past...
> 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).
Well, the thing is, the non-finite form of the English doesn't *allow*
an antecedent. I imagine the following conversation:
A: "To be, or not to be, that--"
B: "Who are you talking about?"
A: "Er, what? I'm not talking about anyone; I'm talking about being
and not being..."
I'd like to pretend that <taH> and <taHbe'> are really nouns, and it's
some sort of clipped Klingon, but that doesn't work with the <-be'>...
Oh well, I guess I will just have to be sad about it.
>> 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.
Yeah, I'm just trying to make excuses for him...
> 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...
Yeah, I know. Still... :((