[87434] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Cogito ergo sum (was RE: Numbers with pronouns)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Wed Dec 2 16:13:01 2009
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:10:13 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <a1173fff0912021136t524f8952w26ede4b024a10d55@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Christopher Doty wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:17, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sequence of events: Okrand was asked to translate "To be or not to be"
>> for Star Trek VI. He came up with {taH pagh taHbe'}, inventing the
>> verb {taH} on the spot, obviously a back-formation from the suffix.
>
> 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.
We sort of do. KGT has all sorts of "infinitive" phrases in examples;
that is, the phrases leave off any indication of person. It is as if
they refer to 3rd-person singular arguments. For instance:
ngem Sarghmey tlha'
chase forest sarks
It wasn't translated "He/she/it/they chase(s) forest sarks."
It might be possible to view {taH pagh taHbe'} in the same say. Hamlet
is thinking "Should I choose {taH} or {taHbe'}?" not "Should I choose to
go on or not to go on?" He's thinking about the WORDS.
It could also simply be clipped.
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
