tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jun 02 09:01:51 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH} (was: long weekend with MO)
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Q on {-meH} (was: long weekend with MO)
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 12:01:35 EDT
First and second persons can, in English, enter into the same
kind of construction as "the probe is difficult to hit".
Can we say in Klingon:
{SammeH bIQatlh.} You're hard to find.
{belmoHmeH jIngeD.} I'm easy to please.
?? I rather hope not; they look dreadful to me.
We can recast less concisely, with "be a person":
{SammeH nuv Qatlh SoH.} You're a hard person to find.
{belmoHmeH nuv ngeD jIH.} I'm an easy person to please.
I don't like this much either. It splits up the natural units
"You're a person" and "hard to find", "I'm a person" and "easy to please".
We could recast even more long-windedly, with a relative clause:
{SammeH Qatlhbogh nuv SoH.} You're a person who's hard to find.
{belmoHmeH ngeDbogh nuv jIH.} I'm an person who's easy to please.
I like this alternative the best of these three. It's long but clear.
A different point:
These examples are all of the form "X is Y to Z". Naturally, the main verb of
the sentence might be something else, with this same construction used non-
predicatively to modify a noun:
{jabbI'IDlIj vIlaDtaHvIS yajHa'meH ngeDbogh mu'tlhegh vItu'.}
Reading your message, I noticed a sentence that was easy to misinterpret.
I think this is easier to read than
{jabbI'IDlIj vIlaDtaHvIS yajHa'meH mu'tlhegh ngeD vItu'.}
Reading your message, I noticed an easy sentence to misinterpret.
What does everyone else think?
--jey'el