[112256] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [tlhIngan Hol] when -laH cripples the -lu'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mayqel qunen'oS)
Mon Mar 18 14:09:45 2019
X-Original-To: tlhingan-hol@lists.kli.org
In-Reply-To: <6421a2de-5075-fb00-24ea-ad4aec413260@trimboli.name>
From: "mayqel qunen'oS" <mihkoun@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:09:30 +0200
To: tlhIngan Hol mailing list <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Reply-To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@lists.kli.org
--===============0475497833551981692==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f761770584624a26"
--000000000000f761770584624a26
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
SuStel:
> Show me a text you want to translate that you think runs
> into an irreconcilable *-lu'/laH* clash.
I'm afraid you misunderstood me.
The problem (or at least my problem..), isn't that I come across the need
to say "someone who is unable", and can't find the way to say it, without
breaking the -lu'/-laH rule.
The problem is, that if I start the passage writing e.g. {vumlu'taHvIS, 'ej
Doy'qu'lu'taHvIS, qeqnISlu'chugh..}, and suddenly I need to say "but he is
unable to train", I would then need to switch off the -lu', to some other
solution.
Perhaps I would say {qeqlaHbe'}, {qeqlaHbe' vay'}, {qeqlaHbe' nuv},
{qeqlaHbe' vumqu'wI'}, etc.
But doing so, I would have to switch from talking about someone
"unspecified", to someone "specified".
Now, don't ask me what the actual difference is, between the "someone"
described by the -lu', and the "someone" described by the vay'. In greek we
don't have something similar, so I can't *feel* the difference between the
two.
But I think sometime in the past, it had been said in a discussion on the
-lu', that once someone starts using in a long passage the -lu', then it
would be preferable if he didn't use -lu' and -vay' (or some other
solution) interchangeably.
~ changan qIj
--000000000000f761770584624a26
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;f=
ont-size:12.8px">SuStel:</span></div><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;=
font-size:12.8px">> Show me a text you want to translate that you think =
runs=C2=A0</span><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;fo=
nt-size:12.8px">> into an irreconcilable=C2=A0</span><b style=3D"font-fa=
mily:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">-lu'/laH</b><span style=3D"font-famil=
y:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">=C2=A0clash.</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><=
span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><di=
v dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">I=
9;m afraid you misunderstood me.</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><span style=
=3D"font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div dir=3D"a=
uto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">The problem=
(or at least my problem..), isn't that I come across the need to say &=
quot;someone who is unable", and can't find the way to say it, wit=
hout breaking the -lu'/-laH rule.</span></font></div><div dir=3D"auto">=
<font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></fon=
t></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-siz=
e:12.8px">The problem is, that if I start the passage writing e.g. {vumlu&#=
39;taHvIS, 'ej Doy'qu'lu'taHvIS, qeqnISlu'chugh..}, and=
suddenly I need to say "but he is unable to train", I would then=
need to switch off the -lu', to some other solution.</span></font></di=
v><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8=
px"><br></span></font></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><sp=
an style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Perhaps I would say {qeqlaHbe'}, {qeqlaHb=
e' vay'}, {qeqlaHbe' nuv}, {qeqlaHbe' vumqu'wI'}, e=
tc.</span></font></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span st=
yle=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font fa=
ce=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">But doing so, I would ha=
ve to switch from talking about someone "unspecified", to someone=
"specified".</span></font></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"=
sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div><div d=
ir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Now,=
don't ask me what the actual difference is, between the "someone&=
quot; described by the -lu', and the "someone" described by t=
he vay'. In greek we don't have something similar, so I can't *=
feel* the difference between the two.</span></font></div><div dir=3D"auto">=
<font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></span></fon=
t></div><div dir=3D"auto"><font face=3D"sans-serif"><span style=3D"font-siz=
e:12.8px">But I think sometime in the past, it had been said in a discussio=
n on the -lu'</span></font><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px;font-family:=
sans-serif">, that once someone starts using in a long passage the -lu'=
, then it would be preferable if he didn't use -lu' and -vay' (=
or some other solution) interchangeably.</span></div><div dir=3D"auto"><spa=
n style=3D"font-size:12.8px;font-family:sans-serif"><br></span></div><div d=
ir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-size:12.8px;font-family:sans-serif">~ chang=
an qIj</span></div></div>
--000000000000f761770584624a26--
--===============0475497833551981692==
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
--===============0475497833551981692==--
