[tlhIngan Hol] some info on {jatlh} and {jang}

[De'vID]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 16:23, SuStel <sustel at trimboli.name> wrote:

> On 6/17/2022 10:11 AM, De'vID wrote:
> > I don't really see it as a new rule. I think it's more like a rule he
> > has had in mind for a long time, and only partially explained previously.
> >
> > What's an example of something that was wrong before but which is now
> > right?
>
> You're taking this as Okrand having thought all this out ahead of time
> and just not explaining it very well. I don't believe it.


I don't believe that he thought it through meticulously from the beginning,
either. I think it's more likely that he played rather fast and loose with
verb prefixes in sentences like {tIqwIj Sa'angnIS} because he saw the
English "I must show you" and looked up "I-you" {Sa-}, and that after doing
this several times a pattern emerged which could be explained by the
"prefix trick" retroactively.


> I think he
> didn't think things out so meticulously before, and now he's
> retrofitting an explanation that covers all the apparent contradictions
> and exceptions we've talked about over the years and which you showed to
> him. Kudos to him for finding an explanation that appears to work for
> everything, and I have no doubt that the original explanation of the
> prefix trick WAS simplified in the act of writing it, but I don't for a
> moment think this is the rule he was following all along. I think it
> took someone who had all the previous information coordinated for him to
> get him to finally piece it all together.
>

Could be. It's clear (at least to me) that in writing the msn post, he
*did* think about the third-person case, and then decided to avoid it
altogether because he'd realised that it would be convoluted.

-- 
De'vID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20220617/0a6db937/attachment-0033.htm>