tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 22 08:15:54 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: Tracy Canfield <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:14:20 -0500
- 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 :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=I8XyxqAaPuuGFpGX/sSHPLiftiJ5kB7FVzEyk/uVsSM=; b=gXGcrRtAvKsZM6YatuxKKrKDkrbRUCa1E3xxK+gs3qlAkJlMyQY0MCfX1kGYAObDc9 isuHc0N4RsDnSSisQlszmmU16ALMTW922WY3d936p3vh9GsUQfDXSxH7dFYWEA2rRhQ9 3E/daHk6ocUMWWOublNzcUP3+RD39ePvmObcI=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=biE7TXUQe7MrPNIoiKgSOFCmr3T9cElYvkbKSQrp4W9SMj5n5Xb03x7bBDj8fPl0cM +AXrd62W7O65xFwubgaXQSeuX1JaWHGWUZ1RkChKpRnbOvYfPw+hdY3UMzmLamyF2wGJ UmmhTiPjUeUaOosblicBis8nEbM8o7IbZMR34=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
2009/11/22 Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>:
> I think your understanding of {-'e'} is fundamentally flawed. We've never seen it used for topic/focus on subjects of verbs.
>
I have.
reH Hegh yoHwI'pu''e'
Always it is the brave ones who die.
http://mughom.wizage.net credits this to TKW.
As I have said before, and am happy to say on every question of this
sort if anyone prefers, I'm doing a machine translation project. That
means that I need to construct a grammar that maps as well onto the
underlying language as I can make it. And *that* means that the
grammar needs to allow sentences that are grammatical, and disallow
sentences that aren't.
And if something seems like it could go either way based on the
information I have available, I need to make some kind of call about
it. If it's simply unknown, I need to document that. The other
linguists who see this probably won't know any Klingon, but as soon as
they see what features the language has, they're going to be asking me
these same sorts of questions.
>It's only when you start poking around the edges and positing outlandish scenarios that Klingon seems incomplete.
>
... huh? I feel like I walked into an argument you're having with
someone else. I haven't made any claims about the completeness of
Klingon.