tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Aug 02 15:45:14 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: lutHom
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: lutHom
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 18:45:05 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 26 Jul 1996 12:20:58 -0700 "Mark E. Shoulson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 19:24:50 -0700
> >From: Tony Harris <[email protected]>
>
> >'Iv vISuch 'e' DaH potlhbe'. chaq latlh lutHomDaq De'vam Daghoj.
>
> mujlaw' pablIj.... So you're
> trying to say "It's not important who I visited" using "'e'" to make "'Iv
> vISuch" the *SUBJECT* of "potlh"... but you can't do that. 'e' only makes
> sentences into *objects*; you can't do sentence as subject stuff.
>
> We don't have a simple or complete answer to the problem of relative
> pronouns, but you can do some workarounds...
>
> 'Iv vISuch? DaH potlhbe' [De'vetlh]. and so on...
My favorite workaround for this is:
DaH ram nuv vISuchbogh. It's short. Its a complete
statement. It works. Meanwhile, ~mark's suggestion has
canonical precidence in {wa' yIHoH. jISaHbe'.} (Of course,
I would have said, {wa' qama' neH yIHoH. yIwIv.}) It just
seems clearer... Then again, this scene may have been shot
before {qama'} meant prisoner...
charghwI'