[87430] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Cogito ergo sum (was RE: Numbers with pronouns)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark J. Reed)
Wed Dec 2 14:59:33 2009
In-Reply-To: <a1173fff0912021136t524f8952w26ede4b024a10d55@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:51:41 -0500
From: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was responding to the fact that, as far as I know, we don't have
> examples of a bare verb functioning as a sort of infinitive.
True, but I think it would get tiresome to have -lu' on basically
every verb in the soliloquy until the end when Hamlet finally refers
to himself. Third person works, though I agree it would be better
with an antecedent established at the beginning (which there isn't
since {taH pagh taHbe'} is the first line).
> So, yeah.. Maybe Okrand was just flustered or something, I dunno...
Well, his original fluster-free translation had the same zero prefix
on {yIn}, so I don't think that was it.
> Or else it's Hamlet, and so has some weird grammar or something. I
> just don't like it.... :((
You're not alone, but this is hardly the most questionable bit of
canon out there. I'm not terribly fond of "The dish is always very
good when someone serves cold revenge", myself...
--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@gmail.com>
