tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 28 11:47:48 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Babalon vaghDaq, qaStaH nuq??
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Babalon vaghDaq, qaStaH nuq??
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:47:44 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Mark E. Shoulson" at Jan 27, 98 09:21:57 pm
According to Mark E. Shoulson:
>
> >Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:05:21 -0800 (PST)
> >From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
> >
> >charghwI'vo':
> >
> >I enjoy that conversation is happening and I feel okay about
> >letting grammatical errors slide in these settings, but...
> >I feel a
> >need to intervene before people get accustomed to these errors
> >and it becomes pseudo-cannon/habit.
>
> Yes. Thank you for doing it; I was counting on SOMEone to mention it. :)
And thank you for following up on it. As I think I said, it was
not an exhaustive examination. I just read it and rewrote stuff
that looked wrong at first glance.
> >> *Sheridan* jonlu' 'e' nab *Clarke* 'ej
> >> pe'vIl DIS *Sheridan* 'e' nIDlu'.
> >
> >pe'vIL DIS *Sheridan* net nID.
>
> This doesn't work for me yet. I imagine the {pe'vIl} by rights belongs
> before the {net}, but even that sounds strained. I thought the meaning was
> just
>
> pe'vIl *Sheridan* luDISmoH 'e' lunID
>
> or some such. It doesn't sound sensible to say that one person tried that
> someone else do something. Or maybe a -meH clause is in order.
Yep. I just saw {... 'e' Xlu'} and plugged in {net X} without
really thinking about it. I was getting tired. I think you got
this one right, and I agree that it might even be improved by
moving {pe'vIl} to be right in front of {'e'}. It makes more
sense that they forcefully tried to disrupt him than to say
that they tried to foreably disrupt him.
> ~mark
charghwI'