tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 16 08:02:29 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: RE: A few phrases.
On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 22:09:52 -0800 (PST) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Patrick Masterson jang pagh:
> >> The truth is out there: voghDaq vIt tu'lu'
> >Do you even need <vogh> here? If you decide you do, I would be strongly
> >tempted to treat the <vogh> like <Dat>, <pa'>, and <naDev> and omit the
> ><-Daq>. We don't have canon (that I know of) to support this, but I cannot
> >believe that <vogh> does not behave like <Dat>.
>
> I can believe it either way, and I will accept it either way without
> complaint. But I find myself avoiding the use of {vogh} because I don't
> know which way is correct.
Agreed, though I would tend to use it without {-Daq} until shown
otherwise. It is such a clearly locative noun that when used in
the locative, I can't imagine why it would need a locative
suffix. I mean, how can we use it as anything BUT a locative?
> >> "We are not who we are.": maHbogh maHbe'
> >Oh, my. This is a tough one. It's really playing with language in a way that
> >does not translate well. Perhaps <marur'eghchu'be'>, or some variation
> >thereof. Perhaps <majech'eghtaH>. What you have just bends my mind. See if
> >you can come up with any other ideas.
>
> All I can come up with is {maH'eghbe'}. I think putting {-'egh} on a
> pronoun rather effectively captures the warped idea behind this phrase.
I think all these tries are good ones deserving respect. The
oddness of it is difficult to translate. My own attempt would be:
maHlaw'bogh maHbe'bej.
> -- ghunchu'wI'
charghwI'