tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Nov 22 08:29:19 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: Steven Lytle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:28:04 -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=/cfFTXveQmhQuevlR7VvzdQzQvCUUBvKZJdrb6YeREk=; b=H/16mpN8G2PoYXRnmv4YgJtoapTrsRwuqu+hzJUAFqC+G0UhMik63OaBq2Pj7W4NDO 3re+xs/HX19t32rSbR2fTSgs6Dr0E6SnA6MZMTHEnsyA0ajHFG4Bl5IFHK9znG6RWjUY Ni0aGUqROCqNVz9U8aqc1GIPn88GwMB6DQbvc=
- 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=EzRkGM7rM60LnJ/QkjGU6r/sA1Pwp9c9rW94vfPMC592dCe/ZMslJw9PAo4UFLbPXb fcM2Tr9sL4dIDxu+5Hg35Utls7MHpZc2ycrYShU4oyAdzLlKctLgngaPfWr5pmLsdfUD WAC05XzQmq0/Ol+BTU4c2MDWNYb+N8ztMipPk=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
It seems that your (or any) MT program should at least attempt to translate
even ungrammatical utterances.
lay'tel SIvten
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Tracy Canfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>