tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 24 20:47:26 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Question about Klingon books (e.g., Gilgamesh et al.)
Christopher Doty (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- From: Christopher Doty <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Question about Klingon books (e.g., Gilgamesh et al.)
- Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:46:07 -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=J3G67J6MD9c/JInFyqHqQDRpep4tD792ZFTWoV9szSA=; b=a2Kir8zINX9h0JYaVc40YNS75sEEGDNW+y/VQlmBTY/HGPcF/JCtOxB5IIjalLABHY W6WX2Zyno+u7my58e/sV/OHt+t/P3lm9mYJFWPVCCoNTYkdcQjLjGVFMFqXy8z0sfO7n VVSZmMDty7HGya9KJ/AmHmwD7TIGi+X7ZjQWw=
- 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=p/q+7bhHpkirwTePoSd5JAj40O4XORnEUMWbeOeppo8PM73VlW1ojWuCgM7IAmSCFa nwJiuw1pjKatmfl1dFLrLDguotGaV7F4VbhhChAu68aKSMyJllYcOiSyRrPExqmGC6U0 4XlgBSxv9FTbUMdTmR5lH7Z3eSs7hxNktFhEQ=
- In-reply-to: <2009E939BE284AA28631D90F52388A36@juH.Seruqtuq.net>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <2009E939BE284AA28631D90F52388A36@juH.Seruqtuq.net>
> N-wI' is not always a person. It can be a thing.
I know, but N-wI' does mean "the thing/person doing the seeing" and
not "the thing which is seen." One is a noun about the subject, and
one is a noun about the object. That is what I am getting at, not
anything about people or things.
>> Ought it not be <leghbe'lu'ghach> or <leghbe'lu'bogh wanI'>?
>> Or is the passive/inverse meaning of -lu' take to its extreme here?
> <leghbe'lu'ghach> is a noun referring to the action of not-being-seen.
Right, the thing which is not seen: the unseen. Is there some shade
of meaning I'm missing here?
> <leghbe'lu'bogh wanI'> refers to an event, an occurance.
> Seeing this I do ask myself about putting -wI' on a -lu'. Can we do this?
> I know... It is really really old tlhIngan Hol; no' Hol.
So it's fair to say that it is a bit odd, if understandable, and I'm
not totally off-base in wondering about it?