[89631] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mu'mey chu': jul
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?UTF-8?B?RGUndklEICjvo5Pvo5Tvo6nv)
Mon Sep 12 15:24:43 2011
In-Reply-To: <4E6A4087.6070000@trimboli.name>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:16:55 -0400
From: =?UTF-8?B?RGUndklEICjvo5Pvo5Tvo6nvo6bvo5fvo5Mg76OY76Od76Ob76Oe76OX76ObKQ==?= <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:36 PM, David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name> wrote:
> The last kind of sentence-as-object construction is the use of {rIntaH}
> to indicate finality. I think there's only one example of this, so we
> don't know a lot about how it works.
>
> qIDna' 'oH chay' 'e' DaSov?
> how do you know it is a definite joke?
>
> I don't see any point to using {-law'} on {Sov}. {-law'} indicates that
> the speaker is uncertain of the fact of the verb, so unless the speaker
> isn't sure that you know it's a joke, it doesn't belong. Since this is a
> question, I'd still hesitate to use it even if I weren't sure of your
> knowledge.
I was going for "How is it that you seem to know it's definitely a joke?"
ghunchu'wI' wrote that perhaps <jul> is a joke only Marc Okrand understand,
like <pe'vIl>. But if <pe'vIl> is a joke that only MO understands, then how
does ghunchu'wI' know that it is, in fact, a joke? That is, I was uncertain
as to the state of ghunchu'wI''s knowledge as to the definite-jokiness of
<pe'vIl>.
--
De'vID ( )
