tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 18 10:59:57 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'aH tIQ
ja' SuSvaj:
>...what I wrote was
>
> QublaHchugh ghom'a' QeH vaj qubbej wanI'vetlh.
>
> "If an angry crowd (singular) could think, then that would be a
>rare event."
That is *exactly* how I understood it from the beginning.
QublaHbe'law' ghom'a' QeH. chaq QublaH, 'ach...
QublaHchugh ghom'a' QeH vaj qubbej wanI'vetlh.
>The reason that /vetlh/ seems intuitively correct here is that since an
>angry mob thinking is such a rare event, then it is a "far off"
>possibility. Of course intuitive guesses can get you into trouble. But it
>seems right to me.
I've often had people give me odd looks due to my "intuition" about -vam
and -vetlh, so my agreement here might not be a great thing...
-- ghunchu'wI'