tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 20 11:37:48 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)

Lieven Litaer ([email protected])

• From: "Lieven Litaer" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
• Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:37:03 +0200 (MEST)
• References: <[email protected]>

> > I didn't see any relationship between
> >
> >   obstruct v. waQ
> > and
> >   be clear (not obstructed) v. Huv

> How about the word "obstruct."

Yeah, depends on what the word means ;-)

> If you don't know what "obstruct" means, look it up.

I did. (I won't ask here if it were no problem)

I want to translate {waQ} into German.

Webster gives me three different explanations, which I don't all understand
clearly. 
My English-German also gives me three different meanings, and each of these
have three or four translations, which reveals more than ten different
german words for "obstruct"

> vay' vIwaQchugh, HuvHa' 'oH.
> If I obstruct something, it is obstructed.
> 
> What's the problem?

Maybe I don't understand the word {Huv} ...?

Isn't that clear like water?? or more like "the view is clear"?

> > adapting to SuStel's sentence's logic, {Huv} is equal to {waQlu'be'},
> > which I doubt.
> 
> Not equal.  One is a verb of quality, the other is not.

Agreed. I rephrase: 
Adapting to your sentence's logic, {Huv} means the same as {waQlu'be'}.

Huv = not obstructed = waQlu'be' ("not obstructed by one")


interesting ...  ;-)


Quvar.

• References:
  • Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
    • From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: tlhIngan Hol lo'taHvIS, latlh Hol wIghoj
• Next by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
• Previous by thread: Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
• Next by thread: Re: Klingon WOTD: waQ (v)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level