tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 18 03:26:12 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} A Q law' B Q puS
- From: Riku Anttila <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: }} A Q law' B Q puS
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 10:26:12 +0300 (EET DST)
>> {QamvIS Hegh QaQ law' torvIS yIn QaQ puS}.
> Well, this is just another one of those little pieces of canon
> we hear, we wince and then we struggle to explain. First of
> all, using {-vIS} without {taH} is, so far as we've heard from
> Okrand, simply an error.
So, it should be QamtaHvIS and tortaHvIS? "While death is standing is
better than while life is kneeling"?
> > (ie. {ja'chuqmeH rojHom} = A truce in order to confer =>
> Ummmm. I can see how you got the first example from TKD.
Where else? I'm not exactly sure myself that I understand this use of
-meH. I just recently realized Okrand tells it to be different from a
normal clause.
> > Summaring everything in a single sentence, is it legal to say
> > {batlh Hegh QaQ law' QIt ramchoH QaQ puS}
> NO.
<nod>
> charghwI'