tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 21 14:40:51 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "Titanic" chov SuSvaj
qaSDI' 12:06 AM 1/21/98 -0800, ghel peHruS:
>In a message dated 98-01-16 22:19:04 EST, SuSvaj writes:
>
><< Do'Ha'qu' je 'oH Titanic'e'. bIQ'a'Daq lengtaHvIS Dujvam, chuch'ay''a'
qIp
> Duj, 'ej bIQ'a' ravDaq pum. >>
>'ach DaH jIghelnIS {Do'Ha'qu' je 'oH Titanic'e'} bIjatlhmo', QaghHey
>Daghajlaw'. {Do'Ha'qu' 'oH je Titanic'e'} jIchup. (wot {'oH} tlha'nIS mu'
Yeah, I wasn't certain about the useage at the time. The whole sentence was:
bIQ'a' Duj tInqu', Do'Ha'qu' je 'oH "Titanic"'e'.
In retrospect, I should have simply left *je* out and writen"
bIQ'a' Duj tInqu', Do'Ha'qu' 'oH "Titanic"'e'.
>{je})
>
>Qagh ghaj je mu'tlheghHom {chuch'ay''a' qIp Duj}, qar'a'?
>"hit with an implement, hand, fist" 'oS mu' {qIp}.
>mu' {ngeQ} vIchup
>tamDI' {chuch'ay''a' ngeQ Duj} wIghaj
That certainly works, but I don't see why either the ship, or the iceberg
could not be thought of as a "hitting implement." Unless the verb *qIp*
implies an intent to hit, rather than hitting by accident. vuDmey???
SuSvaj