[250] in tlhIngan-Hol
The pabpo' responds again
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Mar 26 12:47:13 1992
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: Allan C. Wechsler <ACW@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 11:52-0500
In-Reply-To: <9203261030.AA06061@ima.ima.isc.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 05:30 EST
From: krankor@IMA.ISC.COM (Captain Krankor)
Ok, now I have to respond to the responses {{:-)
First, while the following sentence does me honor, it contains an error:
pabpo'vamneS vItoy' 'e' muquvmoH!
Can't use -neS like that, -neS is a verb suffix and pabpo'vam is
clearly a noun.
mu'tay' vIqawlaH 'e' vIHarHa'pu'. "Oops".
Next: the fact that my whole thing on -ghach is technically no more
than a theory is so obvious that I'm truly surprised that so much
trouble was taken to examine it.
Ah. I was not clear on the "ground rules"; I am set straight.
More stuff on -law':
1) tlhInganpu'vaD mIghlaw' nuq?
[...]
Consider:
bIpIvHa'law' "You look terrible." (You seem unhealthy)
What exactly does the speaker mean here? Let's name our two
paradigms. We'll call them the "strict" and the "loose" approaches.
[... Careful explanation of the strict and loose approach ...]
I accept the loose approach, that <-law'> can express a sort of general
doubt, not necessarily the speaker's. And that does make me feel better
about (1).
2) mungeDlaw'
I'll pursue this in a separate message, if I may. I'm still not
pacified on this point.
>In a noun-adjective construction, shouldn't the noun affixes go on the
>noun? More like <leSDaq puS>?
No. Section 4.4, page 50, last paragraph.
Ah. Right.
jIHvam rap Dochvam. jIyajchu'.
"jIHvam"? jIyajbe'. "jIHvaD" DaneHlaw'pu' (?)
"jiHvaD" vIghItlh 'e' viHechbejpu'.
