[83901] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Specifying distance traveled (was Art of War Chp. 2 (section 1/3))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Wed Jan 9 15:20:42 2008
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:19:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <248C7773-9B26-4819-9F51-E50400D5EEC6@embarqmail.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
{jIleng. cha' SaD qelI'qam 'aD HewIj.}
No reason why you have to try to cram all the
information into a single sentence.
-- ter'eS
--- Doq <doq@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> It sounds like somebody has to talk to Okrand about
> this rather large
> gap in the grammar. If you would do it this way, but
> wouldn't
> encourage anyone else to do it, then how would you
> expect anyone else
> to understand you, since you'd be using grammar that
> you, yourself,
> can't recommend? And if SuStel doesn't like the
> distance as topic,
> where does that leave us in terms of a generally
> acceptable grammar
> for expressing the distance that one travels?
>
> I'm open to suggestions here. So far nothing I've
> come up with is
> generally acceptable, and distance as direct object
> isn't generally
> acceptable.
>
> Are we suggesting that Klingons just never talk
> about traveling over a
> measurable distance?
>
> Doq
>
> On Jan 8, 2008, at 7:45 PM, Alan Anderson wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Doq wrote:
> >
> >> You'd use distance as "a type of time stamp"?
> >
> > I was going to propose the same usage, calling it
> a "place stamp" by
> > analogy. It just seemed a natural way to express
> the idea. I find
> > no canon justification for it, however, so I won't
> encourage anyone
> > to do it that way.
> >
> > -- ghunchu'wI'
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
