[102793] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] 2 nouns in apposition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick)
Thu Dec 3 09:05:47 2015
From: Rohan Fenwick <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: "tlhingan-hol@kli.org" <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 00:05:32 +1000
In-Reply-To: <565ff356.4aaeca0a.902d3.ffffb033@mx.google.com>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@kli.org
--===============3099177379282897476==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_9a1b8cbb-27a2-478e-b3bb-89d3e455240f_"
--_9a1b8cbb-27a2-478e-b3bb-89d3e455240f_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
jIjatlhpu' jIH:
> If I say to you "as a sci-fi fan=2C I recommend you read this book"=2C wh=
o's
> the sci-fi fan here? Me=2C or you? From the text alone we not only do not
> have=2C but outright cannot have=2C a clue with any degree of certainty.
jangpu' QISta'=2C jatlh:
> Exerting my greatest effort to resist launching into a lengthy rant on wh=
y
> the sci-fi fan is "I".
Perhaps not the greatest example. I was trying to construct a deliberate ex=
ample of ambiguity on the fly. How about Groucho Marx's famous "I once shot=
an elephant in my pajamas"?
jIjatlhqa'pu' jIH:
> neither in Klingon nor in any other natural or naturalistic language
> will you get such a universal unambiguity of meaning. If you want
> that=2C you should learn Lojban.
jangqa' je QISta'=2C jatlh:
> Exerting similar effort to resist going off on an even more off-topic ran=
t
> on the difference between syntactic unambiguity and semantic unambiguity.
In this case I wasn't intending to draw a specific distinction. The point r=
emains that ambiguity of both kinds is inherent in every natural language t=
hat I'm familiar with and it's unreasonable to expect Klingon to be any dif=
ferent.
taH:
> Pardon me=2C
'utbe'! qay'be'qu'. :)
QeS 'utlh
=
--_9a1b8cbb-27a2-478e-b3bb-89d3e455240f_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>jIjatlhpu' jIH:<br>>=3B If I s=
ay to you "as a sci-fi fan=2C I recommend you read this book"=2C who's<br>&=
gt=3B the sci-fi fan here? Me=2C or you? From the text alone we not only do=
not<br>>=3B have=2C but outright cannot have=2C a clue with any degree o=
f certainty.<br><br>jangpu' QISta'=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B Exerting my greatest=
effort to resist launching into a lengthy rant on why<br>>=3B the sci-fi=
fan is "I".<br><br>Perhaps not the greatest example. I was trying to const=
ruct a deliberate example of ambiguity on the fly. How about Groucho Marx's=
famous "I once shot an elephant in my pajamas"?<br><div><br>jIjatlhqa'pu' =
jIH:<br>>=3B neither in Klingon nor in any other natural or naturalistic =
language<br>>=3B will you get such a universal unambiguity of meaning. If=
you want<br>>=3B that=2C you should learn Lojban.<br><br>jangqa' je QISt=
a'=2C jatlh:<br>>=3B Exerting similar effort to resist going off on an ev=
en more off-topic rant<br>>=3B on the difference between syntactic unambi=
guity and semantic unambiguity.<br><br>In this case I wasn't intending to d=
raw a specific distinction. The point remains that ambiguity of both kinds =
is inherent in every natural language that I'm familiar with and it's unrea=
sonable to expect Klingon to be any different.<br><br>taH:<br>>=3B Pardon=
me=2C<br><br>'utbe'! qay'be'qu'. :)<br><br>QeS 'utlh<br></div> =
</div></body>
</html>=
--_9a1b8cbb-27a2-478e-b3bb-89d3e455240f_--
--===============3099177379282897476==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@kli.org
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
--===============3099177379282897476==--
