unable to use the upper case letter to specify by not specifying
In greek/english we *can* say: standing before His altar In the sentence above, although we don't say who this "he" is, the upper case "H" shows that the one in question isn't someone "regular". He can be a god, kahless, molor, melkor, etc. Now, perhaps someone thinks that "by definition the altar is something of a god, or in honor of one". But there's also the case where saying "standing before his altar" can actually mean "the practitioner stands before the altar which he constructed in order to honor whoever he worships". So it falls upon the "h/H" to distinguish.. The fact that we can't do that simple thing in klingon irritates me. ~ Qa'yIn
On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 11:05 AM mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
So it falls upon the "h/H" to distinguish..
The fact that we can't do that simple thing in klingon irritates me.
*pIm Holmey pIm. * If you want to signify that the altar is dedicated to someone important, you could try repeating the referent each time: *Qun lat*, *joH'a'* *lat*, etc. Or use a longer phrase: *qeylIS quvmoHmeH lat*. By seeing that the referent is continually mentioned, the reader will hopefully conclude that they're someone important. (*ghaH lat* might have a similar effect, because it's an unusual phrasing, but that suggestion would no doubt be controversial.)
nIqolay Q:
Or use a longer phrase: qeylIS quvmoHmeH lat. By seeing that the referent is continually mentioned, the reader will hopefully conclude that they're someone important. (ghaH lat might have a similar effect, because it's an unusual phrasing, but that suggestion would no doubt be controversial.)
Your comments gave me the following idea: {ghaH'e' quvmoHmeH loD, lat chenmoHpu'} Here, the {ghaH} *has* to refer to the supernatural being, while at the same time not specifying who/what this being is. In other words it's the "He/Him" equivalent, we've been looking for. So now we have a complete pie *and* a full dog ! (greek equivalent of "we can have our cake, and eat it too") Thanks !!! ~ Qa'yIn
I’m not sure that everyone would interpret your Klingon statement as you intend. Sent from my iPhone.
On Aug 11, 2020, at 12:32 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
nIqolay Q:
Or use a longer phrase: qeylIS quvmoHmeH lat. By seeing that the referent is continually mentioned, the reader will hopefully conclude that they're someone important. (ghaH lat might have a similar effect, because it's an unusual phrasing, but that suggestion would no doubt be controversial.)
Your comments gave me the following idea:
{ghaH'e' quvmoHmeH loD, lat chenmoHpu'}
Here, the {ghaH} *has* to refer to the supernatural being, while at the same time not specifying who/what this being is. In other words it's the "He/Him" equivalent, we've been looking for.
So now we have a complete pie *and* a full dog ! (greek equivalent of "we can have our cake, and eat it too")
Thanks !!!
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
The suffix {-‘e’} is odd in that it can either give you the topic of a sentence, or it can mark something as a focus word. In other words like other Type 5 noun suffixes, you can put it on a word at the beginning of a sentence and that word isn’t the subject or object of the main verb. It’s the topic. Like the locative gives you a spacial context for the sentence, {-‘e’} as topicalizer can give you a topic context for the sentence. SuvwI’’e’ SoH yoH law’ Hoch yoH puS. I’m sure I’m not quoting that correctly, but the idea is that the noun {SuvwI’} has its function in the sentence defined by the suffix. It provides the context for the sentence. "We’re talking about warriors. You are the bravest.” You can also take a noun that already has a grammatical function and add {-‘e’} to it wherever it normally would appear in the sentence. It can still be a subject or object of any clause as revealed by its position, and you can mark it with {-‘e’}. The classic case is to use it to disambiguate a relative clause with both a subject and object by marking the head noun with {-‘e’}. {puq’e’ qIppu’bogh yaS vISov.} "I know the child who was hit by the officer." You are trying to use {-‘e’} as if it meant the same things as {-‘a’}, somehow increasing the significance of the noun in all contexts outside of the sentence, like {SuvwI’’a’ SoH.} Here, the {-‘a’} has nothing to do with grammatical function in the sentence. A {SuvwI’’a’} is a different kind of {SuvwI’} which is more significant than a normal {SuvwI’}. Meanwhile, we’ve never been given reason to believe that a pronoun can take {-‘a’}. In your sentence, we can’t even be sure whether {ghaH’e’} is to topic of the entire sentence, or the direct object of {quvmoHmeH loD} because if it’s the latter, we don’t really have a reason for marking it with {-‘e’}. You are just emphasizing that the man honors HIM, and only HIM. There’s nothing all that special about “him” except that within the context of this specific sentence, the action is exclusively done to him. It doesn’t mark {ghaH} as different from any other {ghaH}, except that in the action of this specific sentence, this guy doesn’t honor anyone other than him. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 11, 2020, at 12:41 PM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
charghwI'
I’m not sure that everyone would interpret your Klingon statement as you intend.
But I can't see any other way it could be understood.
Could you specify further on how it could be understood any different ?
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/11/2020 12:32 PM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
{ghaH'e' quvmoHmeH loD, lat chenmoHpu'}
Here, the {ghaH} *has* to refer to the supernatural being, while at the same time not specifying who/what this being is. In other words it's the "He/Him" equivalent, we've been looking for.
I don't follow. /In order that the man honor HIM (as opposed to someone else), he made a monument./ I don't see how this implies a supernatural being. It could just as easily refer to erecting a memorial building in the name of Martin Luther King Jr. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 8/11/2020 10:59 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
In greek/english we*can* say:
standing before His altar
In the sentence above, although we don't say who this "he" is, the upper case "H" shows that the one in question isn't someone "regular". He can be a god, kahless, molor, melkor, etc.
Now, perhaps someone thinks that "by definition the altar is something of a god, or in honor of one". But there's also the case where saying "standing before his altar" can actually mean "the practitioner stands before the altar which he constructed in order to honor whoever he worships".
So it falls upon the "h/H" to distinguish..
The fact that we can't do that simple thing in klingon irritates me.
The fact that it's done in English irritates me. As a non-religious person, I get annoyed at seeing God have his own special grammar. I'd be glad not to see it in Klingon. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 8/11/2020 10:59 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
In greek/english we*can* say:
standing before His altar
In the sentence above, although we don't say who this "he" is, the upper case "H" shows that the one in question isn't someone "regular". He can be a god, kahless, molor, melkor, etc.
Now, perhaps someone thinks that "by definition the altar is something of a god, or in honor of one". But there's also the case where saying "standing before his altar" can actually mean "the practitioner stands before the altar which he constructed in order to honor whoever he worships".
So it falls upon the "h/H" to distinguish..
The fact that we can't do that simple thing in klingon irritates me.
SuStel:
The fact that it's done in English irritates me. As a non-religious person, I get annoyed at seeing God have his own special grammar. I'd be glad not to see it in Klingon.
It's not just God (or god, as you prefer). It's also royalty. Pronouns associated with kings and queens, and sometimes with lesser nobility, are often capitalized. And the first person singular pronoun (I) is capitalized for *everyone*. English is wacky. As a side note, using the royal We in Klingon can be an excellent practice exercise for some of the less common verb prefixes. How often do you actually get to use re- and che- in conversation? pagh
On 8/11/2020 1:17 PM, RE Andeen wrote:
SuStel:
The fact that it's done in English irritates me. As a non-religious person, I get annoyed at seeing God have his own special grammar. I'd be glad not to see it in Klingon. It's not just God (or god, as you prefer).
I'm perfectly happy if he gets a capitalized proper noun like everybody else. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
jajwI’ DachemmoHchu’. qatlho’neS. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 11, 2020, at 1:10 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:
On 8/11/2020 10:59 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
In greek/english we*can* say:
standing before His altar
In the sentence above, although we don't say who this "he" is, the upper case "H" shows that the one in question isn't someone "regular". He can be a god, kahless, molor, melkor, etc.
Now, perhaps someone thinks that "by definition the altar is something of a god, or in honor of one". But there's also the case where saying "standing before his altar" can actually mean "the practitioner stands before the altar which he constructed in order to honor whoever he worships".
So it falls upon the "h/H" to distinguish..
The fact that we can't do that simple thing in klingon irritates me.
The fact that it's done in English irritates me. As a non-religious person, I get annoyed at seeing God have his own special grammar. I'd be glad not to see it in Klingon.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
I was laughing too hard. I mistyped {jajwIj} and auto-clicked “Send”. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 11, 2020, at 2:25 PM, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
jajwI’ DachemmoHchu’.
qatlho’neS.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 11, 2020, at 1:10 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name <mailto:sustel@trimboli.name>> wrote:
On 8/11/2020 10:59 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
In greek/english we*can* say:
standing before His altar
In the sentence above, although we don't say who this "he" is, the upper case "H" shows that the one in question isn't someone "regular". He can be a god, kahless, molor, melkor, etc.
Now, perhaps someone thinks that "by definition the altar is something of a god, or in honor of one". But there's also the case where saying "standing before his altar" can actually mean "the practitioner stands before the altar which he constructed in order to honor whoever he worships".
So it falls upon the "h/H" to distinguish..
The fact that we can't do that simple thing in klingon irritates me.
The fact that it's done in English irritates me. As a non-religious person, I get annoyed at seeing God have his own special grammar. I'd be glad not to see it in Klingon.
-- SuStel http://trimboli.name <http://trimboli.name/>
_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org <http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org>
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/11/20 1:10 PM, SuStel wrote:
On 8/11/2020 10:59 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
In greek/english we*can* say:
standing before His altar
In the sentence above, although we don't say who this "he" is, the upper case "H" shows that the one in question isn't someone "regular". He can be a god, kahless, molor, melkor, etc.
Now, perhaps someone thinks that "by definition the altar is something of a god, or in honor of one". But there's also the case where saying "standing before his altar" can actually mean "the practitioner stands before the altar which he constructed in order to honor whoever he worships".
So it falls upon the "h/H" to distinguish..
The fact that we can't do that simple thing in klingon irritates me.
The fact that it's done in English irritates me. As a non-religious person, I get annoyed at seeing God have his own special grammar. I'd be glad not to see it in Klingon.
The fact that it's done in English irritates me even as a religious person. (And it isn't even done all THAT regularly. There are many English Bibles, published by religious folk, that do not capitalize the pronouns.) It certainly isn't something you can assume you have the right to in any language. I will point out that throughout the entire Hebrew Bible (in the original Hebrew), there is not a *single* case of a pronoun for God being capitalized. Should you point out that this is because Hebrew (like Klingon!) does not have a concept of capital letters, well, you've just made the point that much better. You can't demand to be able to use uppercase letters, because nobody said you'd have them. Not every script does. (Honestly, I think the whole concept of a bicameral alphabet is just a Bad Idea all around, but it's too late to fix it.) ~mark
Mark E. Shoulson:
You can't demand to be able to use uppercase letters
fse: While you were reading the initial post, where exactly did you read the word "demand" ?. I don't "demand" anything. I didn't write anywhere the word "demand". I described something which irritates me; is there a rule on this list that we *have* to like every aspect of the language ? Is there a rule, that we are required to fall on our knees for the klingon language almighty, and kahless forbids that we dare to say that there's something we don't like ? It would be pathetic if the official mailing list of the "warrior's tongue", demanded it's members to bend knee, blindly swallow *everything* which concerns the language and like it, behaving like slaves. tlh: QIn wa'DIch DalaDtaHvIS, nuqDaq damand mu' DalaDpu' ? mu'vam Daqna' Dangu'laH'a' ? pagh vIpoQ; pagh DaqDaq demand mu' vIjatlhpu'. muberghmoHbogh vay' vIDelpu'; Hoch tlhIngan DI'onmey DIQejnIS, tlhIngan Hol DunvaD matornIS, 'ej {Holvam bopbogh vay' wIpar} mu'mey DIjatlhbe'nIS. chutvam tu'lu''a' ? chutvam wIpab maHvaD 'e' poQ'a' qeylIS ? toy'wI''a'pu' Da tlhIngan Hol QIn tetlh jeSwI'pu'; Holvam bopbogh Hoch lulajchu' tlhIngan Hol QIn tetlh jeSwI'pu'vam, 'ej wanI'vam luparHa'chu'.. jeSwI'pu'DajvaD 'e' poQchugh SuvwI'pu' Hol QIn tetlh, vaj vay' 'IQchoHmoH wanI'vam. ~ Qa'yIn
On 8/12/2020 6:17 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson:
You can't demand to be able to use uppercase letters fse:
While you were reading the initial post, where exactly did you read the word "demand" ?. I don't "demand" anything. I didn't write anywhere the word "demand".
bIyajHa'ba'. naDev /demand/ Dellu': https://www.dictionary.com/browse/demand /Demand /jatlhDI' Seqram, "to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right" "to ask for peremptorily or urgently" ghap 'oSbe' mu'. "To call for or require as just, proper, or necessary" 'oS. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 8/12/20 9:02 AM, SuStel wrote:
On 8/12/2020 6:17 AM, mayqel qunen'oS wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson:
You can't demand to be able to use uppercase letters fse:
While you were reading the initial post, where exactly did you read the word "demand" ?. I don't "demand" anything. I didn't write anywhere the word "demand".
bIyajHa'ba'. naDev /demand/ Dellu': https://www.dictionary.com/browse/demand
/Demand /jatlhDI' Seqram, "to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right" "to ask for peremptorily or urgently" ghap 'oSbe' mu'. "To call for or require as just, proper, or necessary" 'oS.
mu'meywIj DaQIjchu'pu'. maj. ~mark
I’m tempted to suggest that the Internet has invented a class of inflammatory speech hitherto unknown to humankind, but one need only look at political pamphlets and letters going back to early written speech to prove otherwise. My wife and I are currently reading a book on Servetis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus) and Calvin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin) where one of the more significant moments in history centered around a written exchange between the two disrespecting each other’s perspective, culminating in Servetis being burned at the stake; specifically that he be burned over a low flame so it would take longer to kill him and he’d suffer longer. It took half an hour for him to stop screaming, though he was posthumously respected for his conviction to his belief, since he never recanted anything throughout the ordeal, not that the respect benefitted him much. It did make things temporarily awkward for Calvin, though. Though Servetis lost the legal argument, he was pretty obviously the better Biblical scholar of the two, and apparently discovered a truer model of the human circulatory system than had existed in medical science 75 years before the guy most commonly credited for having figured it out. Spoiler Alert: Blood flows from the heart to the lungs, then back to the heart before being distributed to most living cells in the body (except the clear, gooey parts of the eyeballs), and then it gets pumped back to the heart. He was the first to realize that the lungs got something out of the air and added it to the blood and took something out of the blood and moved it to the air and the rest of the body benefitted from this process. Calvin was less intelligent, but more clever than Servetis, winning political battles that successfully caused enormous, unnecessary suffering to millions of people for generations. Anyway, the intensity of language used in making a point rarely wins the argument in the long run. Unnecessary falling to words like “fall on our knees”, which nobody suggested, or “It would be pathetic to” do something nobody here suggests that you would have to do, nor must you “blindly swallow” anything. You don’t have to behave like a “slave”, either. Nobody here thinks you do, and odds are you know that, despite your self-cast role as victim of some evil conspiracy to control you. Your point would earn more respect if it could be stated without this disproportionate intensity. You may not like that simple truth. You may feel passionately driven to respond to it with even more intensity, but it won’t change the simple truth. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 12, 2020, at 6:17 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson:
You can't demand to be able to use uppercase letters
fse:
While you were reading the initial post, where exactly did you read the word "demand" ?. I don't "demand" anything. I didn't write anywhere the word "demand".
I described something which irritates me; is there a rule on this list that we *have* to like every aspect of the language ? Is there a rule, that we are required to fall on our knees for the klingon language almighty, and kahless forbids that we dare to say that there's something we don't like ?
It would be pathetic if the official mailing list of the "warrior's tongue", demanded it's members to bend knee, blindly swallow *everything* which concerns the language and like it, behaving like slaves.
tlh:
QIn wa'DIch DalaDtaHvIS, nuqDaq damand mu' DalaDpu' ? mu'vam Daqna' Dangu'laH'a' ? pagh vIpoQ; pagh DaqDaq demand mu' vIjatlhpu'.
muberghmoHbogh vay' vIDelpu'; Hoch tlhIngan DI'onmey DIQejnIS, tlhIngan Hol DunvaD matornIS, 'ej {Holvam bopbogh vay' wIpar} mu'mey DIjatlhbe'nIS. chutvam tu'lu''a' ? chutvam wIpab maHvaD 'e' poQ'a' qeylIS ?
toy'wI''a'pu' Da tlhIngan Hol QIn tetlh jeSwI'pu'; Holvam bopbogh Hoch lulajchu' tlhIngan Hol QIn tetlh jeSwI'pu'vam, 'ej wanI'vam luparHa'chu'.. jeSwI'pu'DajvaD 'e' poQchugh SuvwI'pu' Hol QIn tetlh, vaj vay' 'IQchoHmoH wanI'vam.
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
tlhoy nong Qinmey law’ vIlabpu’bogh. DaH jIqeSDI’, QaghmeywIj ngo’ vIqel. ghojmeH mIwmeyvam vIghojtaHvIS, jIQIpchu’pu’ ‘ej Qaghmeyvammo’, jIbechpu’. bechtaHghachvam lujunlaH latlhpu’ ‘e’ vIQaHlaHchugh, jIQuch. ghaytan, vIQaHlaHbe’. ghoj’eghnIS Hoch, ‘e’ vISov, ‘ach jInIDlaH… And yes, I think I remember that the second verb in an SAO isn’t supposed to take a Type 9 suffix. I just think this statement is better expressed by ignoring the rule. Or maybe there is no such rule, and no need for an apology or explanation. Whatever. charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 12, 2020, at 11:08 AM, Will Martin <willmartin2@mac.com> wrote:
I’m tempted to suggest that the Internet has invented a class of inflammatory speech hitherto unknown to humankind, but one need only look at political pamphlets and letters going back to early written speech to prove otherwise.
My wife and I are currently reading a book on Servetis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus>) and Calvin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin>) where one of the more significant moments in history centered around a written exchange between the two disrespecting each other’s perspective, culminating in Servetis being burned at the stake; specifically that he be burned over a low flame so it would take longer to kill him and he’d suffer longer. It took half an hour for him to stop screaming, though he was posthumously respected for his conviction to his belief, since he never recanted anything throughout the ordeal, not that the respect benefitted him much. It did make things temporarily awkward for Calvin, though.
Though Servetis lost the legal argument, he was pretty obviously the better Biblical scholar of the two, and apparently discovered a truer model of the human circulatory system than had existed in medical science 75 years before the guy most commonly credited for having figured it out. Spoiler Alert: Blood flows from the heart to the lungs, then back to the heart before being distributed to most living cells in the body (except the clear, gooey parts of the eyeballs), and then it gets pumped back to the heart. He was the first to realize that the lungs got something out of the air and added it to the blood and took something out of the blood and moved it to the air and the rest of the body benefitted from this process.
Calvin was less intelligent, but more clever than Servetis, winning political battles that successfully caused enormous, unnecessary suffering to millions of people for generations.
Anyway, the intensity of language used in making a point rarely wins the argument in the long run.
Unnecessary falling to words like “fall on our knees”, which nobody suggested, or “It would be pathetic to” do something nobody here suggests that you would have to do, nor must you “blindly swallow” anything. You don’t have to behave like a “slave”, either. Nobody here thinks you do, and odds are you know that, despite your self-cast role as victim of some evil conspiracy to control you.
Your point would earn more respect if it could be stated without this disproportionate intensity.
You may not like that simple truth. You may feel passionately driven to respond to it with even more intensity, but it won’t change the simple truth.
charghwI’ vaghnerya’ngan
rInpa’ bomnIS be’’a’ pI’.
On Aug 12, 2020, at 6:17 AM, mayqel qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com <mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson:
You can't demand to be able to use uppercase letters
fse:
While you were reading the initial post, where exactly did you read the word "demand" ?. I don't "demand" anything. I didn't write anywhere the word "demand".
I described something which irritates me; is there a rule on this list that we *have* to like every aspect of the language ? Is there a rule, that we are required to fall on our knees for the klingon language almighty, and kahless forbids that we dare to say that there's something we don't like ?
It would be pathetic if the official mailing list of the "warrior's tongue", demanded it's members to bend knee, blindly swallow *everything* which concerns the language and like it, behaving like slaves.
tlh:
QIn wa'DIch DalaDtaHvIS, nuqDaq damand mu' DalaDpu' ? mu'vam Daqna' Dangu'laH'a' ? pagh vIpoQ; pagh DaqDaq demand mu' vIjatlhpu'.
muberghmoHbogh vay' vIDelpu'; Hoch tlhIngan DI'onmey DIQejnIS, tlhIngan Hol DunvaD matornIS, 'ej {Holvam bopbogh vay' wIpar} mu'mey DIjatlhbe'nIS. chutvam tu'lu''a' ? chutvam wIpab maHvaD 'e' poQ'a' qeylIS ?
toy'wI''a'pu' Da tlhIngan Hol QIn tetlh jeSwI'pu'; Holvam bopbogh Hoch lulajchu' tlhIngan Hol QIn tetlh jeSwI'pu'vam, 'ej wanI'vam luparHa'chu'.. jeSwI'pu'DajvaD 'e' poQchugh SuvwI'pu' Hol QIn tetlh, vaj vay' 'IQchoHmoH wanI'vam.
~ Qa'yIn _______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org <mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
On 8/12/2020 1:51 PM, Will Martin wrote:
And yes, I think I remember that the second verb in an SAO isn’t supposed to take a Type 9 suffix. I just think this statement is better expressed by ignoring the rule. Or maybe there is no such rule
chutqoqvetlh Dajalpu'. mu'tlhegh wa'DIchDaq mojaq Segh Hut chaw'be'lu'law'. chutvam maqbe'lu'pu' 'ach Dawemchugh DapHey Dajatlh. -- SuStel http://trimboli.name
On 8/11/20 10:18 PM, Daniel Dadap wrote:
On Aug 11, 2020, at 16:42, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote:
(Honestly, I think the whole concept of a bicameral alphabet is just a Bad Idea all around, but it's too late to fix it.) muHaghqu'moHpu' mu'tlheghvam ngutlhmey tIn lo'mo' bIH chupHa'taHvIS.
HIja'. 'ej qatlh qay'? :) nargh tI'meH 'eb 'e' vIghov, 'ej ngutlh tIn DIlo' 'e' vIlaj. ~mark
You can’t capitalize in speech anyway, so you’re just talking about conventions for transcription. If you want to glorify a name, pronoun, epithet, or other reference when writing it, you have many options. Make the whole thing bigger. Underline it. Use a different typeface. Give it a distinctive color, or an aura, or a special symbol before or after it. Put sparkles around it. Upper case letters in an alphabet aren’t universal, but there are other ways to indicate a word as being special. -- ghunchu'wI'
participants (8)
-
Alan Anderson -
Daniel Dadap -
Mark E. Shoulson -
mayqel qunen'oS -
nIqolay Q -
RE Andeen -
SuStel -
Will Martin