[598] in tlhIngan-Hol
Analyzed text
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Tue Apr 20 01:26:46 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: SPEERS@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 23:12 EDT
X-Vms-To: IN%"tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us"
From: IN%"Postmaster@xerox.com" 19-APR-1993 20:44:09.47
To: IN%"SPEERS@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu"
CC:
Subj: Undeliverable mail
Return-path: <Clayvin.Parc@xerox.com>
Received: from alpha.Xerox.COM by guvax.acc.georgetown.edu (PMDF #12755) id
<01GX7IXVV3WG91ZYOP@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>; Mon, 19 Apr 1993 20:43 EDT
Received: from Clayvin.Parc.Xerox.xns by alpha.xerox.com via XNS id <11713>;
Mon, 19 Apr 1993 17:43:39 PDT
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 17:42:50 PDT
From: Clayvin.Parc@xerox.com (A Mail Service)
Subject: Undeliverable mail
To: SPEERS@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Reply-to: Postmaster@xerox.com
Message-id: <93Apr19.174339pdt.11713@alpha.xerox.com>
The enclosed message could not be delivered to the following recipient:
ken_beasley.PARC@Xerox.com -- no such user
- - - - - - - - -
Received: from guvax.acc.georgetown.edu ([141.161.1.2]) by alpha.xerox.com with
SMTP id <11698>; Mon, 19 Apr 1993 17:42:05 PDT
Received: from guvax.acc.georgetown.edu by guvax.acc.georgetown.edu (PMDF
#12755) id <01GX717F338091ZR08@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>; Mon,
19 Apr 1993 12:16 EDT
X-VMS-To: IN%"ken_beasley.parc@xerox.com"
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 09:16:00 PDT
From: SPEERS@guvax.acc.georgetown.EDU
Subject: my message, analyzed
To: ken_beasley.PARC@Xerox.com
Message-ID: <01GX717F338091ZR08@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu>
Ken,
My, that is quite a program! Ever think of making it commercial?
I'll ignore constructions such as "krankorvaD" which are
obviously wrong (I couldn't remember the tlhIngan spelling at the
time), but also, obvious.
HolQedDaq
Meaning "in 'HolQeD'." My fault, for the 'd'. Would the
analyzer have interpreted this as "in the journal HolQeD" or more
like "in language science"?
parHa'wI'mo'
I meant this to be something like "one who likes it," 'it'
being the previously mentioned object.
ooH
Sorry, should have been 'oH.'
tlap
Should have been tlhap
The last sentence:
"complement" je "adjunct" QaQ law' "direct object" je "indirect
object" QaQ puS.
This is the comparative construction. The thing that TKD doesn't
make clear is whether the Q part of the formula, the Quality,
should be inflected. In the one example given, the verb is not
inflected. I suppose the 'human' element of the analyzer would
have to interpret a syntactic construction larger than a word.
Again, I hope this was helpful. Happy programming!
d'Armond
