[111390] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] DSC Klingon Trailer transcription (NOT offlist)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Thu Oct 5 08:06:06 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 14:26:06 -0400
In-Reply-To: <f2a11c3e-908e-5125-c41d-8d17df67aa16@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.
--===============1521596115061461525==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------4DC68155822B52F142329704"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------4DC68155822B52F142329704
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/4/2017 2:12 PM, Lieven wrote:
> Am 04.10.2017 um 20:05 schrieb SuStel:
>> This isn't a course in logic.
>
> It also isn't a course of interpretation.
>
>> "When the indirect object is first or second person, oh and third
>> person too, but I feel like not saying that one for some reason, ..."
>> That's nonsense.
>
> That is YOUR interpretation of the text.
>
> Neither of us can assume that one of each versions is true. That's why
> I will not continue this discussion, because I have learned that we
> cannot convince each other, and I accept the fact which you taught me,
> which is when Okrand did not talk about something we just can never
> know what his opinion on it is.
It's too bad you're not going to reply, because I'd LOVE to know why you
think Okrand went out of his way, twice in that article, to separate
first- and second-person objects from third-person objects, but he
REALLY meant that ANY objects can do this.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------4DC68155822B52F142329704
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 10/4/2017 2:12 PM, Lieven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f2a11c3e-908e-5125-c41d-8d17df67aa16@gmx.de">Am
04.10.2017 um 20:05 schrieb SuStel:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">This isn't a
course in logic. </blockquote>
<br>
It also isn't a course of interpretation.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">"When the indirect
object is first or second person, oh and third person too, but I
feel like not saying that one for some reason, ..." That's
nonsense.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That is YOUR interpretation of the text.
<br>
<br>
Neither of us can assume that one of each versions is true. That's
why I will not continue this discussion, because I have learned
that we cannot convince each other, and I accept the fact which
you taught me, which is when Okrand did not talk about something
we just can never know what his opinion on it is.
</blockquote>
<p>It's too bad you're not going to reply, because I'd LOVE to know
why you think Okrand went out of his way, twice in that article,
to separate first- and second-person objects from third-person
objects, but he REALLY meant that ANY objects can do this.</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>
--------------4DC68155822B52F142329704--
--===============1521596115061461525==
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
--===============1521596115061461525==--
