tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 22 08:31:01 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "Titanic" chov SuSvaj
qaSDI' 07:06 PM 1/21/98 -0800, ghItlh ghunchu'wI':
>ja' SuSvaj:
>>In retrospect, I should have simply left *je* out and writen"
>>
>> bIQ'a' Duj tInqu', Do'Ha'qu' 'oH "Titanic"'e'.
>
>No, that's not like any of the examples we've seen. Nowhere in canon do
>we find two "adjectives" following a noun without a conjunction. Indeed,
>KGT tells us that adjectival constructions aren't possible with "lengthier"
>formations, apparently referring to multiple verbs of quality. On page 82
>of KGT, {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh} "The tea that is {SuD} and light" is
>used as an example of how it must be said. There's another example that
>I can never find...
>
>>>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???
>
>I do think that {qIp} implies an intentional action. It isn't the hammer
>that strikes the nail in this way, but the person wielding the hammer.
I should probably have used *mup* then. As *mupwI'* is the canon word for
"hammer" it can't cary the same implication of intention.
SuSvaj