[100435] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] A long word
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Wed Mar 18 13:10:39 2015
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:10:21 -0400
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <CAFK8js1Ja5NXC8c4+uKi1Ri4b2XYvQD-mMUBjb-tRN07w8EKbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
On 3/18/2015 12:28 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Anthony Appleyard
> <a.appleyard@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> SuchchuqnISqa'moHlaHlaw'taHneSghachHommeyqoqrajmo'
>>
>> V:visit VS1:each_other VS2:need VS3:[do_again|resume] VS4:cause VS5:be_able
>> VS6:apparently VS7:continuous VS8:honorific VS9:-ation* NS1:diminutive
>> NS2:pl_gen NS3:so_called NS4:your_pl_nonsentient NS5:due_to
>
> I have a semi-tangential nitpick. What are you using that analyzes
> {-raj} as "your_pl_nonsentient"? The {-ra'} vs. {-raj} distinction is
> based on ability to use language, not ability to experience
> sensations.
He is probably thinking of the common science-fiction usage; see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience#Science_fiction>, which even
includes a Star Trek example.
It's still not correct, but even the definition "capable of using
language" is subject to exceptions.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
