tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Aug 13 15:04:16 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qep'a' highlights (Hey let us in on it, guys)
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qep'a' highlights (Hey let us in on it, guys)
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 18:04:07 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996 13:56:59 -0700 [email protected]
wrote:
> qaSDI' 96-07-30 09:29:56 EDT, jatlh ~mark:
>
> > >yabDu'raj tIjejmoH 'e' vImaS. I prefer that you sharpen your minds.
> >
> > Hmm... Interesting. Does the imperative work here? I think it does in
> > Esperanto (mi preferas ke vi akrigu...) Does it make sense though?
> > Something to think about. Maybe a simple indicative is more sensible.
I'd prefer a less idiomatic:
yabDu'raj tIDubmoH 'e' vImaS.
> This sort of thing has always struck me as a slightly "marked" (I've never
> used this word in this way, or frequency, until signing onto this list!) way
> of speaking. Similar to the trick of saying something like
>
> ~'Iv HoH 'e' vISov~ "I don't know whom he killed."
And for this, I'd prefer:
nuv HoHbogh vISovbe'.
I don't know the humanoid whom he killed.
You may complain that this is ambiguous with one of the
meanings paralleling:
nuv HoHbogh vIghovbe'.
If you want to express it as "I don't know the identity of
the person he killed," then the Klingon Way (page 59) gives
us the use of {qab} as symbol of one's identity, so you
could say:
nuv qab HoHbogh vISovbe'.
Meanwhile, this is even MORE ambiguous, since it could
obviously mean, "I don't know the bad person whom he
killed." We could tweak things a bit.
nuv qabna' HoHbogh vISovbe'.
I don't know the true identity of the person he killed.
Mostly, I feel like, while this use of a question in a
Sentence As Object construction may be legal, though it is
without canon, it is usually unnecessary because of the
relative clause construction which usually takes care of
it.
> SuStel
> Stardate 96580.1
----------------------
Will Martin
[email protected]