[87663] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Hypothetical (reconstructed) vocabulary?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Tue Jan 12 20:32:41 2010
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:31:28 -0500
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <796398.27489.qm@web24005.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On 1/12/2010 8:23 PM, Alex Greene wrote:
>>> "That is not so" would be something like "qarbe' Dochvetlh,"
>>> "lughbe' Dochvetlh" or "teHbe' Dochvetlh" if I were trying to
>>> translate the above sentence. *vajHa' doesn't sit right with me
>>> either.
>>
>> When Maltz balks at something, my impression is that he considers
>> it "not the way a Klingon would say it," not that it doesn't make
>> sense to him. /We/ completely lack any way to reason along these
>> lines.
>
> It's okay to just say that it's M. Okrand balking at the
> construction, and deciding that *vajHa' doesn't sit right with him.
But how do you know that's what is happening? I don't believe it is.
Okrand likes to include lots of little "'cause that's the way they say
it" rules in the language, having nothing to do with whether it "sits
right" with him. When he says Maltz balks, he means Maltz balks, not
that he balks.
--
SuStel
http://www.trimboli.name/
