tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 17 12:16:29 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: to' nech, 051-061
From: "Sean M. Burke" <[email protected]>
> At 08:42 2002-04-17 -0400, David Trimboli wrote:
> > > K: yI'uchchu'!
> > > Gloss: Grab it!
> >How about:
> >nom yIwoH!
>
> Yes, woH is much better. And the more I think about it, 'uchchu' makes me
> think of what you do to a rope in a game of tug-of-war, instead of just
> reaching out and grabbing something to get the feel of it.
/-chu'/ needn't imply forcefulness. /'uchchu'/, aside from being a
palindrome, would be useful to describe when someone is holding something
such that it can't be dropped, taken away, or whatever, according to the
context.
> > > K: beqvaD jo' yIlan.
> > > Gloss: Replace a crewman with a machine.
> > > [I'm unsure of the choice of verb, and of the argument structure.]
> >
> >I like the Klingon sentence here; it has a slightly different feel, but
it
> >seems to come out to the same thing as the gloss ultimately.
> >
> >Without context, it's a little vague. It's unclear whether the
beneficiary
> >(beq) actually benefits from the action, or is affected by it, or what.
>
> Exactly what I was worrying about. On the one hand, I want "-vaD" to
> signal who's actually being given something (in which case you could read
> the above as something like "set him up with new equipment", altho that
too
> is hardly a bad idea). And on the other hand, I think of "-vaD" as a
> serving, in a pinch, as a sort of "general particle for tagging the third
> argument of a verb".
Well then how about this (clipped):
beq teq; cho' jo'.
(Heh.)
But more seriously,
beq yIteq; jo' yIchel.
SuStel
Stardate 2293.4