tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 02 20:19:00 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hol vIlo' (was Re: Holna' wIlo'bejtaH)
- From: Joel Peter Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Hol vIlo' (was Re: Holna' wIlo'bejtaH)
- Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 22:18:49 -0600 (CST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, DaQtIq wrote:
> jIHvaD jang Joel Peter Anderson:
> > [no. May your mind and spirit guide you.]
>
> <nIDevjaj yablIj qa'lIj je> DaghItlhHa'.
>
> Duj tIvoqtaH!
HIja'.
> loQ choyajHa'. jIvangtaHvIS jIQuch.
toH. rojtaHghachmo' jIQuch.
> >>toH! pab potlh law' meq potlh puS pagh meq potlh law' pab potlh puS?
> >
> >"Straw Man" "False Dichotomy" pagh Daghaj.
> > [DaQtIq appears to create a false dichotomy, reason or grammar'
>
> You seem to misunderstand the Klingon. I would translate my question as:
> "Is grammar more important than intention or is intention more important
> than grammar."
"meq" means "reason", not "intent". That is why I was confused.
I would say: "ghItlh potlh law' pab potlh puS", or perhaps
"qa' potlh law' pab potlh puS"
> (btw, to conjoin nouns use in the either/or sense, use <ghap> not <pagh>.)
HIja'. jIDogh.
> >parmaq potlh law'. qorDu' potlh law'. lalDan potlh law'. pab potlh puS.
> > [Love matters much. Family matters much. Religion matters much.
> > Grammar matters little.]
>
> I would phrase this differently to use Klingon grammar:
>
> <potlhqu' ~parmaq~. potlhqu' qorDu'. potlhqu' lalDan. potlhbe' pab.>
If you meant that. I did not intend to say "potlhbe' pab."
> Assuming <parmaq> is a noun, of course.
jIHagh! bIDogh!
** Four thousand non-Okrand words can be used in a night **
** by a laughing Klingon! jItlhaQ! jIHagh! **
** [email protected]* [email protected] **
** [email protected] **http://members.aol.com/JPKlingon **