[256] in tlhIngan-Hol
The pabpo' kept busy...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Mar 27 12:23:18 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: Fri, 27 Mar 1992 11:41-0500
In-Reply-To: <9203262257.AA08441@ima.ima.isc.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1992 17:57 EST
From: krankor@IMA.ISC.COM (Captain Krankor)
More stuff to respond to.
First: the -bogh thing has surfaced again. Happily, the proposed solution
is the same as the correct solution. I proposed that solution to Okrand
himself, and he agreed with it. It is the most 'official' rule we have
that isn't actually in the dictionary.
Ah -- I wasn't here when the <-bogh> thing came up the first time. I'm
glad to have my intuition confirmed; sorry for the repetition. (I asked
the moderator if I could read the archive when I came on board, and was
told it wasn't necessary.)
Second: we had a list of about 6 sentences, with the questions
"Are these grammatical?" and "What do they mean?".
The answers are "Yes, they are grammatical", and "Beats me what
they mean."
That's a perfectly acceptable answer to the question. I confess that I
am surprised that (1) <tIn qoq> doesn't read easily as "The robot is
big", and (4) <tInlaw' qoq> as "The robot seems big".
As for the other sentences, they were not chosen capriciously. I
realize that the spirit of joyful inquiry may be wearing a bit thin, but
whether those semantically marginal sentences can be interpreted, has a
direct bearing on the <mungeDlaw'> question.
