[3489] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: pegh in PK
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sun Feb 27 15:07:32 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: dls9@aol.com
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 94 14:58:56 EST
ghItlh charghwI'
> I think that more than whether or not a word has the word "be" in its
>definition, the pattern Okrand uses for definitions between the English to
>Klingon side and the Klingon to English side tells whether or not a verb can
>be used adverbially. {pegh} fits that pattern for an adjectivally useful
verb.
Now, wait a second. Okrand did not *define* any word in TKD. He merely used
one or more English *synonyms* for that Klingon word to give us the
impression of that particular word's semantic value. No language's words can
*define* another's words, because true semantic values differ subtly between
different cultures, and even different dialects of one language.
Ok, now that THAT's cleared up...
Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
