tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 15 02:07:00 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: DCKL translation problems: {yaH}

Lieven L. Litaer (Quvar) ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol ghojwI']

Am 14.01.2004 22:09:59, schrieb Philip Newton <[email protected]>:

>> >Not "weggenommen werden"?
>> Wouldn't that be "being taken away"?

>> 1. "weggenommen (worden) sein"
>>        has the meaning "it's gone"
>
>I'd translate that "having been taken away"

Okay, if something has been taken away, then can it not be taken away??
(I'm getting into trouble understanding my own question)

>> 2. "weggenommen werden"
>>        describes the action of taking away
>
>This is how I understand "be taken away".

interesting. I understand the opposite :-)
So you understand "wird weggenommen" and not "ist weggenommen"

>Perhaps {qama' nge'lu'ta'} for "The prisoner was taken away" - "der
>Gefangene wurde fortgebracht"; 

nee, er wurde "weggenommen" {nge'}.

>{qama' nge'lu'taH} - "der Gefangene wird
>fortgebracht".

"fortgebracht" !!  (??)
there we get another possible word!
Now it gets even more complicated than I thought it would...

>If it's "take away" in 

No, it's "be taken away".

>the sense of "fortbringen", then {tlhap} doesn't work. 

But you believe that {nge'} works?? I don't.
Now I see through this discussion (and Philip's example) that {yaH} is not related to {nge'} "take 
away".
Hm. I think I'll put this one in the box of "untranslatible-words-we-don't-understand-and-probably-
even-Marc-Oktand-doesn't-know." :-)

>vIt DaSovchu' DaneHchugh tlhInganvaD yIghel.

naDev tlhIngan law' vISovbe', 'a chaq matlh vIghomDI' vIghellaH.

Quvar.

Back to archive top level