[87460] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Cogito ergo sum (was RE: Numbers with pronouns)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Wed Dec 2 23:58:08 2009
In-Reply-To: <a1173fff0912021610t3a03a1a2r6ef4c10a09281d5d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 23:55:27 -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 7:10 PM, Christopher Doty <suomichris@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, okay, I see what you mean. With the first one, <ngaQ lojmIt>, one
> could equally well say <lojmIt vIgnaQpu'>; that is, "I've 'locked in'
> the outcome, made only one outcome possible'", yes?
No, because {*vIngaQpu'} should be {vIngaQmoHpu'}.
Even with the correction, it would still not necessarily have the
meaning you propose, as SuStel explained. {ngaQ lojmIt} isn't
described as one of the idiomatic concepts that gets incorporated into
a variety of sentences. Any variations on the phrasing would likely be
interpreted literally. I like to think I'm pretty good about
recognizing these idioms, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have
recognized {lojmIt vIngaQmoHpu'} as one.
-- ghunchu'wI'
