tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 27 19:22:46 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Sormey Hol
Andeen, Eric wrote:
> > reH bommey bombogh ghotpu' tu'lu'.
>
> This is fine, but it seems like you are a little hung up on what you want
> the English to be. Here's my suggestion for an alternative: <bomtaHwI'pu'
> tu'lu'>.
I don't know if I understand this. Is bomtaHwI'pu' like a noun and verb in the
same word? I know bomwI'pu' is singers and bomtaH is singing so does putting
them together as bomtaHwI'pu' mean singers singing all in one word? If it does,
then that's pretty cool. I didn't know we could do that. So I could do the
same thing with any -wI' noun? So if I want to say, "There are translators
translating", it would be mughtaHwI'pu' tu'lu'? In other words, there are
translators and they're doing their thing. Am I understanding right?
> > jI'Ijchugh jatlh Sormey 'e' chaq vIQoy.
>
> I would say <... chaq 'e' vIQoy>, although we have canon examples of
> sticking the adverbial after the <'e'>, so yours is fine as well.
I don't understand why chaq would go before 'e'. In fact, where to put most
adverbs stumps me. TKD says they usually come at the beginning of the sentence,
then the addendum says that isn't necessarily the case. It's no problem in a
simple sentence but in a more complex one I've been taking my best guess.
Oh and here's a question that's probably really stupid but what's canon? Is
that what they speak on the TV shows and movies?
K'ryntes