tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 16 14:55:45 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: nuQbogh jaj
ghunchu'wI' wrote:
> ja' HovqIj:
> >ghaytan wa' jaj bIjor 'ej bIQID'eghchu' qoj latlhpu' DaQIDchu'.
> >rut QeHlIj DatlhabmoH 'e' qaq law' QeHlIj DavI' 'e' qaq puS.
> >[...]
> >You probably dislike that I used a sentence with <'e'> as the subject of
> >the <law' / puS> construction, right? I wouldn't have dared to do this,
> >but I'm _quite_ sure we have canon for this (one of the skybox cards, I
> >think). If I am wrong here, I am going to accept it.
>
> I can see what you are trying to say here, and I think I see how you
> are trying to say it:
>
> "That you sometimes free your anger is preferable to that you accumulate
> your anger."
>
> Someone needs to hit you with a painstick! Unless you can come up with
> this purported canon, you're *way* off base here. {'e'} is always used
> as the object of a sentence, and by your own explanation you're trying
> to use it as a subject. That's even assuming that the noun phrases in
> a {law'/puS} construction even count as subjects.
>
> If *I* am wrong here, and there *is* canon precedent, *I* am of course
> going to accept it. :-)
I definitely understand why you don't like it. But I really have this strange
feeling I've seen it before. I'm probably just wrong. Voragh?
DujlIj yIvoq. 'ach yIvoq 'ach yI'ol.
>
>
> This sort of idea is one of the places where I think {-ghach} actually
> works well: {QeHlIj tlhabmoHghach qaq law' QeHlIj vI'moHghach qaq puS.}
There are likely many better solutions than mine, I didn't think too much
about it when I wrote it.
HovqIj
>
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'