tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 03 13:19:22 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: chay' "Get out of the way!" ra'lu'?

Terrence Donnelly (terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net) [KLI Member]





--- On Wed, 6/3/09, Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu> wrote:

> From: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>
> Subject: RE: chay' "Get out of the way!" ra'lu'?
> To: "'tlhingan-hol@kli.org'" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 2:51 PM
> Fiat Knox:
> >> yIDev pagh yItlha' pagh HIwaQ 'e' yImev!
> Voragh:
> > Also, I'm not sure {pagh} "or else, either/or" works
> with three 
> > clauses.  All canon examples have only two
> clauses, usually opposites 
> > (e.g. eat vs. drink, VERB vs. VERB{be'}, VERB vs.
> VERB{Ha'}).  I would 
> > drop the first {pagh}:
> 
> >Fiat Knox wrote:
> >> I also recall "pung ghap HoS," "Mercy or power,"
> where "ghap" is
> >> "exclusive OR." Mercy and power are mutually
> incompatible, in this
> >> sense.
> >>
> >> In my sentence, the sentence-joining "exclusive
> or" preposition
> >> "pagh" was required to convey that same sense of
> mutual exclusivity.
> >> One is either leading, or following me; one cannot
> just stand there
> >> and be in the speaker's way. Well, one could, if
> one were willing to
> >> enjoy getting swiftly knocked down.
> 
> SuStel:
> >The objection wasn't to your choice of words, it was to
> your placement
> >of the conjunctions.  Instead of
> >
> >    <phrase> pagh <phrase>
> pagh <phrase>
> >
> >the suggestion was to use
> >
> >    <phrase>, <phrase>, pagh
> <phrase>
> >
> >because we've seen things like this before.
> >
> >However, I would call that a stylistic suggestion, not
> anything we know
> >definitively about the grammar.
> 
> Actually my objection wasn't to the placement of
> conjunctions in general, but the placement/use of {pagh} "or
> else, either/or" specifically, which (to me) implies a
> choice between only two options:  either/or. 
> Using it with three options seemed odd... rather like
> speakers who misuse "on the other hand".  E.g.:
> 
>    I could be right. On the other hand
> SuStel could be right.  
>    And on the other hand Fiat Knox could
> also be right!
> 
> Thus implying three hands!  
> 
>  

The proper phrase is "on the gripping hand..." ;-)

-- ter'eS






Back to archive top level