[87403] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Numbers with pronouns
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Wed Dec 2 10:09:07 2009
In-Reply-To: <7AAC3006E6224AA99CF5BBA806A39883@juH.Seruqtuq.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:07:24 -0500
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Seruq <seruq@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> jIQub vaj jIH.
>
> It's not canon.
It's pretty much anti-canon. The existence of the verb {taH} "go on,
endure, continue" (and the real-world context which created it) is a
very strong indication that one does not use pronouns to mean "to be"
in the sense of "to exist".
> I suppose it could be labelled as poetic license. But how would you do that
> sentence?
(SuStel does it exactly the way you did. I'll let him explain why.)
Some have argued that {jIQub} is enough, as it automatically implies
that I am a real entity, but that's kind of a cop-out. I'd probably
try to be explicit and say {jIQubmo' jIngebbe'ba'}.
-- ghunchu'wI'
