tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 20 08:11:09 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
on Krankor's article in HolQeD
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: on Krankor's article in HolQeD
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 11:11:07 EDT
I lost my most recent HolQeD before I could read it and just
found it again. In "From the Grammarian's Desk" Krankor poses a
challenge of how to say, "If executing an evasive maneuver is
sufficient, then taking evasive action is foolish." He proposes
a solution focusing on the use of {-ghach}. It strikes me that
there are more elegant ways of expressing this:
Qu' Data'meH bIjunlaHchugh neH vaj yIjuntaHQo'!
Besides handling the problem with a verb-centric approach, it
applies a clearer distinction that the objection is to the
continuity of an action which should be done for a finite
period of time. It also answers the implied question, "Exactly
WHAT is an evasive maneuver enough FOR?" It is enough for the
purpose of accomplishing the mission.
For even more focus on the point of the sentence, it might also
be expressed:
Qu' Data'meH bIjunlaHchugh neH vaj yIjuntaHqu'Qo'!
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |