tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 23 15:55:58 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Question about -bogh
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Question about -bogh
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 18:54:42 -0500
>* yaSvaD 'oH yuchvam'e'.
>This is not a valid sentence. You are going from the English,
>"This chocolate is for the officer," and you are not
>considering the limits of the <noun pronoun noun'e'>
>construction. This sentence steps beyond those limits and
>sounds like, "For the officer, THIS CHOCOLATE is." Great. This
>chocolate is WHAT? We don't know. The chocolate is being for
>the officer? Klingon has a very different perspective on the
>concept of "being".
[...]
>My problem is with "This is for". You are already in need of
>recasting. What do you mean by, "This is for"? You need to find
>a better way of expressing this thought.
chaq Qay'qu'be'nIS charghwI'. ghoHlaHchu' ghaH; 'ach wa''e' tlhojbe' je, 'e'
vItu'.
<yaSvaD 'oH yuchvam'e'>
pab mu'tlheghvam'e', pabDaj rurchu'mo' je pabvam'e' qonbogh *Okrand*: <pa'Daq
jIHtaH>. vaj pab <yaSvaD 'oH yuchvam'e'>, 'e' chaw'bej tlhIngan Hol
mu'ghom'a'. *Pronoun* tlha'laH wot, tlhejDI' je mojaq Segh vagh.
ghuy'Do