tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 05 02:36:05 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: wamwI' yIn pem
> > Doy'moH Qu'
>
> As a stylistic matter, I would add {-choH}.
>
lu'
> > Ha'DIbaH tu'lu'be'
>
> To me, this implies that there are no animals to be found (by anyone).
> (Which is maybe which you meant.)
> If there are animals there, but the hunter simply doesn't find them, I
> would say, {Ha'DIbaH tu'be'.}
>
I'm not sure :) what I wanted to express, is that
although there may be animals around, even an excellent
hunter couldn't have tracked one down.
the placement of -be' was however only because I
considered tu'lu' a fixed expression. if Okrand
says tu'be'lu', so will I...
> > tuvmo' popDaj 'oH quvmoHbogh wamtaHghach
>
> <-'e'> Dachel 'e' DalIj. I would also insert {ghaH} to indicate {'oH} is
> not the object of {quvmoHbogh}:
>
> tuvmo' popDaj 'oH ghaH quvmoHbogh wamtaHghach'e'.
>
lu'
> > he gets almost impatient
>
> At the qep'a', we made a list of adverbials we would like to see Marc
> Okrand come up with. I think "almost" or "nearly" was on that list.
>
> But in this case, I think you can say, {loQ boHchoH.} (He becomes a little
> impatient.)
>
ahhm... I wanted to evoke the picture of him having to
control his instincts, his blood "boiling", urging him
to ACT NOW, FIND GAME at whatever cost...
--
----------------------------------------------------
Marc Ruehlaender [email protected]
Universitaet des Saarlandes, Saarbruecken, Germany
----------------------------------------------------