tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 02 20:57:12 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)

ghunchu'wI' 'utlh (

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Christopher Doty <> wrote:
> Ah, okay, I see what you mean.  With the first one, <ngaQ lojmIt>, one
> could equally well say <lojmIt vIgnaQpu'>; that is, "I've 'locked in'
> the outcome, made only one outcome possible'", yes?

No, because {*vIngaQpu'} should be {vIngaQmoHpu'}.

Even with the correction, it would still not necessarily have the
meaning you propose, as SuStel explained. {ngaQ lojmIt} isn't
described as one of the idiomatic concepts that gets incorporated into
a variety of sentences. Any variations on the phrasing would likely be
interpreted literally. I like to think I'm pretty good about
recognizing these idioms, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have
recognized {lojmIt vIngaQmoHpu'} as one.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level