[86911] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: The topic marker -'e'
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Lytle)
Sun Nov 22 11:29:53 2009
In-Reply-To: <1cb7130b0911220814r5637a7d4ofe3f749dce638d9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:28:04 -0500
From: Steven Lytle <lytlesw@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
It seems that your (or any) MT program should at least attempt to translate
even ungrammatical utterances.
lay'tel SIvten
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Tracy Canfield <toastrix@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/11/22 Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>:
> > I think your understanding of {-'e'} is fundamentally flawed. We've never
> seen it used for topic/focus on subjects of verbs.
> >
> I have.
>
> reH Hegh yoHwI'pu''e'
> Always it is the brave ones who die.
>
> http://mughom.wizage.net credits this to TKW.
>
> As I have said before, and am happy to say on every question of this
> sort if anyone prefers, I'm doing a machine translation project. That
> means that I need to construct a grammar that maps as well onto the
> underlying language as I can make it. And *that* means that the
> grammar needs to allow sentences that are grammatical, and disallow
> sentences that aren't.
>
> And if something seems like it could go either way based on the
> information I have available, I need to make some kind of call about
> it. If it's simply unknown, I need to document that. The other
> linguists who see this probably won't know any Klingon, but as soon as
> they see what features the language has, they're going to be asking me
> these same sorts of questions.
>
> >It's only when you start poking around the edges and positing outlandish
> scenarios that Klingon seems incomplete.
> >
> ... huh? I feel like I walked into an argument you're having with
> someone else. I haven't made any claims about the completeness of
> Klingon.
>
>
>
>
