[111375] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] male female baby
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Thu Oct 5 03:11:07 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 11:21:29 -0400
In-Reply-To: <b8bbb951-391f-e29b-b630-265df3b7a90c@gmx.de>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============3153390664366288940==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------9F56D69E530765C9279EAEB1"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------9F56D69E530765C9279EAEB1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/3/2017 10:46 AM, Lieven wrote:
> On 10/3/2017 10:37 AM, Lieven wrote:
>>> To avoid the problem, I would make this two phrases:
>>> {ghu vIlegh. loD ghaH.}
>
> Am 03.10.2017 um 16:42 schrieb SuStel:
>> That implies to my mind that the baby is a man. Say this instead:
>> *ghu vIlegh; loDHom ghaH.*
>
> You are definitely right, that's more accurate. I had the same thing
> in mind as well. But then I thought like, hey, I already said it's a
> BABY. No need to mention the {Hom}-part any more.
I wouldn't want to approach this too much like a math problem. Suffixes
aren't exactly like mathematical operators. A *loDHom* is a different
thing than a *loD,* not just a *loD* that's had the operation of
minorness performed on it.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------9F56D69E530765C9279EAEB1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/3/2017 10:46 AM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b8bbb951-391f-e29b-b630-265df3b7a90c@gmx.de">On
10/3/2017 10:37 AM, Lieven wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">To avoid the
problem, I would make this two phrases:
<br>
{ghu vIlegh. loD ghaH.} </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
Am 03.10.2017 um 16:42 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">That implies to my
mind that the baby is a man. Say this instead: *ghu vIlegh;
loDHom ghaH.*
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You are definitely right, that's more accurate. I had the same
thing in mind as well. But then I thought like, hey, I already
said it's a BABY. No need to mention the {Hom}-part any more.
</blockquote>
<p>I wouldn't want to approach this too much like a math problem.
Suffixes aren't exactly like mathematical operators. A <b>loDHom</b>
is a different thing than a <b>loD,</b> not just a <b>loD</b>
that's had the operation of minorness performed on it.<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------9F56D69E530765C9279EAEB1--
--===============3153390664366288940==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
--===============3153390664366288940==--
