[111693] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] replying with {'oH}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SuStel)
Tue Oct 24 04:20:47 2017
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
From: SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:04:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1508777398979.8620@kth.se>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============3651840476560108593==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------94C948FBE93C2168D228544E"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------94C948FBE93C2168D228544E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 10/23/2017 12:49 PM, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
>
> Now, on the other hand, if the question is:
> {nagh 'oH'a' Dochvam'e'?}
>
> then answering with {'oH.} or {'oHbe'.} makes perfect sense.
>
I wouldn't say that either. *'oH* does not mean /be/ or /is./ It just
means /it./ We use it to translate English "to be" sentences, but
there's still no /be/ in there. */Tarzan/ jIH; /Jane/ SoH*/Me Tarzan;
you Jane./
We add verb suffixes to the pronoun because copula relationships can be
continuous or negated or queried and so on, but it's still a pronoun,
not a verb.
And if you strip away the linking of the pronoun with some noun, you
have no copula left. Saying *'oH* is not saying /it is (something
general or unspecified);/ it is only saying /it./
If you must give a full answer to *nagh 'oH'a' Dochvam'e', *it would be
*nagh 'oH.* It can't get any smaller.
--
SuStel
http://trimboli.name
--------------94C948FBE93C2168D228544E
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/23/2017 12:49 PM, Felix
Malmenbeck wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:1508777398979.8620@kth.se">
<p>Now, on the other hand, if the question is:<br>
{nagh 'oH'a' Dochvam'e'?}</p>
<p>then answering with {'oH.} or {'oHbe'.} makes perfect sense.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I wouldn't say that either. <b>'oH</b> does not mean <i>be</i>
or <i>is.</i> It just means <i>it.</i> We use it to translate
English "to be" sentences, but there's still no <i>be</i> in
there. <b><i>Tarzan</i> jIH; <i>Jane</i> SoH</b><i> Me Tarzan;
you Jane.</i></p>
<p>We add verb suffixes to the pronoun because copula relationships
can be continuous or negated or queried and so on, but it's still
a pronoun, not a verb.</p>
<p>And if you strip away the linking of the pronoun with some noun,
you have no copula left. Saying <b>'oH</b> is not saying <i>it
is (something general or unspecified);</i> it is only saying <i>it.</i></p>
<p>If you must give a full answer to <b>nagh 'oH'a' Dochvam'e', </b>it
would be <b>nagh 'oH.</b> It can't get any smaller.<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>
--------------94C948FBE93C2168D228544E--
--===============3651840476560108593==
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
--===============3651840476560108593==--
