[3309] in tlhIngan-Hol
Word used by Marnen
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Feb 17 17:46:14 1994
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@klingon.East.Sun.COM
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 17:29:25 -0500
In-Reply-To: Nick NICHOLAS's message of Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:52:16 EDT <1994021702
52.18375@krang.vis.mu.OZ.AU>
>From: nsn@vis.mu.OZ.AU (Nick NICHOLAS)
>Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 13:52:16 EDT
>Hu'tegh! nuq ja' Mark E. Shoulson jay'?
>=Now, there *is* some ambiguity between "a great warrior knows when he has
>=finished speaking" and "When does a great warrior know he has finished
>=speaking?", namely, whether the "ghorgh" applies to the main clause or the
>=initial subordinate one. Bummer, huh.
>Um, actually, while ambiguity is omnipresent and acceptable in Klingon,
>it isn't present here:
>ghorgh jatlh rIntaH vaj 'e' Sov vaj
>vs.
>jatlh rIntaH vaj, ghorgh 'e' Sov vaj? (She has spoken --- when does the warrio
r
>know this?)
*blink*. Ohyeah. That's right. OK.
>=deal with it. We have the same problem with relative clauses as objects
>=and "-vaD" or "-Daq" or "-mo'" words at the front of them: "DujDaq puq
>=DaqIppu'bogh vIlegh" could mean "I see the child which you hit on the ship"
>=or "on the ship, I see the child which you hit" (i.e. the seeing or hitting
>=may have happened on the ship). We cope.
>Although there's a third interpretation, "I see the ship where you hit the
>child", which we reject.
Yeah, yeah, this ship-in-which-I-fled problem. I wanted to leave that one
out of this mess for a change.
~mark
