tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Sep 14 06:33:02 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Practice with -meH
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Practice with -meH
- Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:06:04 -0400
I saw this during my effort to catch up with the mailing list. I hope I am
not being redundant.
From: Andeen, Eric <[email protected]>
>>>>> The bird of prey didn't have enough power to raise shields.
>>>> botjan chu'meH HoS yap Hutlh toQDuj.
>>>
>>> majQa'. pup.
pup, 'ach yInuDchu'. If you read this as {botjan chu'meH, HoS yap Hutlh
toQDuj}, it is wrong. This would mean that the bird of prey went out of its
way to lack strength, just so that it could activate its shields. This is
not what the English sentence means.
If you read it as {[botjan chu'meH HoS yap] Hutlh toQDuj}, then the meaning
is indeed perfect. "The bird of prey lacks sufficient
power-for-activating-shields."
>> I also like to avoid overworking {ghaj}, but {Hutlh} seems to have
>> the same problem for me. Here's my phrasing for this sentence:
>>
>> botjan chu'meH yapbe' toQDuj HoS.
This sentence, on the other hand, cannot be read so that it comes out
correctly. It seems to be saying that the bird of prey's strength was not
sufficient precisely for the purpose of raising shields. This makes no
sense. Rephrasing it takes us right back to the original sentence above.
>I don't think there's anything wrong with this use of <Hutlh>. <ghaj> often
>gets stretched beyond its real meaning because the English "have" is so
>broad, but I don't think that is the case here. As a matter of style, it's
>never a bad idea to avoid <ghaj> and <Hutlh> when possible, and your
>sentence is at least as good, but there is nothing wrong with the setnence
>tuv'el came up with.
Agreed: in the case of the bird of prey, we're really talking about
something the ship may or may not literally possess.
SuStel
Stardate 98702.2