[111568] in tlhIngan-Hol

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: [tlhIngan Hol] law' puS construction with law'

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Fri Oct 13 07:06:10 2017

X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:50:02 -0400
In-Reply-To: <dfe24153-c6ae-4e9f-91c2-2d2ac9955042@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.
--===============8090160758028660557==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------B0416D69CCDB222435229140"
Content-Language: en-US

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------B0416D69CCDB222435229140
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/11/2017 11:29 AM, Lieven wrote:
> Am 11.10.2017 um 17:13 schrieb nIqolay Q:
>> What's interesting to me is that one of the first canon sentences for 
>> {vItlh} (from the Smithsonian Air and Space tour app) was a law'-puS 
>> construction: {DoDaj vItlh law' wab Do vItlh puS.} I wonder if it was 
>> coined specifically to avoid using {law'} twice in a row.
>
>
> I think it's the difference in the definition: They are talking about 
> speed, especially the amount of speed measured in numbers.
>
> The speed was higher, but they were stil ltalking about ONE speed. 
> Using {law'} "be many" would mean that they are talking about several 
> speeds, in plural.
>
> {DoDaj vItlh law' wab Do vItlh puS.}
> "The speed is higher than the speed of sound"
>
> {DoDaj law' law' wab Do law' puS.}
> "His speeds are more than the sound's speeds" 

In SkyBox S32, we see *'ul law'* which gets translated /highly-charged./ 
I'd expect *'ul* and *Do* to be treated similarly in this regard. 
Obviously, the answer is that Okrand just hadn't thought of *vItlh* yet, 
but here we're not expected to think of this as /many (different) 
electricities./ I don't think *Do law'* would automatically mean /many 
(different) velocities/ just by that logical alone.

Now that we have *vItlh,* that's obviously the better choice for things 
like this. But you can't completely rule out using *law'.*

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name


--------------B0416D69CCDB222435229140
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 10/11/2017 11:29 AM, Lieven wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:dfe24153-c6ae-4e9f-91c2-2d2ac9955042@gmx.de">Am
      11.10.2017 um 17:13 schrieb nIqolay Q:
      <br>
      <blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">What's interesting
        to me is that one of the first canon sentences for {vItlh} (from
        the Smithsonian Air and Space tour app) was a law'-puS
        construction: {DoDaj vItlh law' wab Do vItlh puS.} I wonder if
        it was coined specifically to avoid using {law'} twice in a row.
        <br>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
      <br>
      I think it's the difference in the definition: They are talking
      about speed, especially the amount of speed measured in numbers.
      <br>
      <br>
      The speed was higher, but they were stil ltalking about ONE speed.
      Using {law'} "be many" would mean that they are talking about
      several speeds, in plural.
      <br>
      <br>
      {DoDaj vItlh law' wab Do vItlh puS.}
      <br>
      "The speed is higher than the speed of sound"
      <br>
      <br>
      {DoDaj law' law' wab Do law' puS.}
      <br>
      "His speeds are more than the sound's speeds"
    </blockquote>
    <p>In SkyBox S32, we see <b>'ul law'</b> which gets translated <i>highly-charged.</i>
      I'd expect <b>'ul</b> and <b>Do</b> to be treated similarly in
      this regard. Obviously, the answer is that Okrand just hadn't
      thought of <b>vItlh</b> yet, but here we're not expected to think
      of this as <i>many (different) electricities.</i> I don't think <b>Do
        law'</b> would automatically mean <i>many (different)
        velocities</i> just by that logical alone.</p>
    <p>Now that we have <b>vItlh,</b> that's obviously the better
      choice for things like this. But you can't completely rule out
      using <b>law'.</b><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>

--------------B0416D69CCDB222435229140--

--===============8090160758028660557==
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

--===============8090160758028660557==--

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post