tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 24 10:12:35 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
qep'a' vaghDIch
- From: "Holtej" <[email protected]>
- Subject: qep'a' vaghDIch
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:10:57 -0400
- Importance: Normal
wa'Hu' maja'chuq *Lawrence jIH je. qep'a' vaghDIch wIqel. [1] DISvam jISaH
'e' vIwuqta'!
wa' ben, cha' ben je loQ belHa' jatlhwI'pu' nIv. wanI'mey law' nab
*Lawrence, 'ach jatlhwI' chu'vaD nablaw'. loQ jIbep je 'e' vIchID.
jatlhwI' nIv, jatlhwI' chu' wIma'meH Qujmey chu' wI'oghnIS. chaq rut cha'
ghom wIchenmoHlaH, 'ach motlh wa' ghom qaq law' ghommey law' qaq puS 'e'
vIHar.
vaj SaqaD, 'ej jIqaD'egh je: qep'a' yIbuS. nuq Data' DaneH? Qujmey chu'
Da'oghlaH'a'? jatlhwI' chu' wItungHa'meH 'ej jatlhwI' nIv wIma'meH DaH
wInabnIS. pagh wItungnIS. quqnIS'a' cha' Quj? Quj pIm wInabnIS'a'?
qechmeyraj yIngeH!
--Holtej
[1] Geez, I never considered this use of /qel/ to be controversial before.
Perhaps it's my native English speaker bias; OTOH, /qel/ and /buS/ seem like
totally different concepts to me, distinguishing more than simply a
transitive/intransitive distinction. What I *really* want is a transitive
way to convey */vay' wIja'chuq/!