tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jan 26 21:38:54 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jatmey QaghmeyHey
- From: WestphalWz <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jatmey QaghmeyHey
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 00:38:38 EST
- Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
In a message dated 98-01-23 10:45:58 EST, Tad Stauffer writes back to peHruS:
<< > 2. Qaghba' {'eH HIvruplaw' 'oH} qar {'eH HIvbeHlaw' 'oH}
>
mojaq vIwIvta'bogh vIHechqu'taH jIH. vetlh 'oS {'oH}. HIvbeHlaH janmey.
HIvruplaH Dep yoq joq.
TKD p.36 says that -beH refers to devices, while -rup refers to beings.
I assume that -rup can be used in this case, since TKD doesn't indicate
that the beings must be language-users. However, you probably thought
that the {'oH} referred to the guard's disruptor, rather than the
{vetlh'a'}, in which case I would use -beH.
>>
--------------peHruS continues---------
In may haste in reading TKD, I assumed that {-rup} applies to "sentient"
beings, not just beings which are other than devices. Then, verb+rup would
require {ghaH}, not {'oH}. Or, verb+beH would require {'oH}.
Thanks for presenting your point of view.
peHruS