tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 26 18:04:01 2006

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: double-checking

DloraH ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

I would say to keep it on at least the second one.  They were killed more
than 1000 years ago.  But because we don't know exactly when, the -pu'
implies that at the point in time 1000 years ago, it had been done.

And from the story we know, -ta' could be used.  -pu' CAN still be used
because -pu' does NOT say that there was NOT intent; it doesn't mention
intent either way; ie: it is unimportant to the conversation.  But if you
want the intent mentioned and telling that this occured more than 1000 years
ago, -ta' would be good.


DloraH


> 
> You don't really need the {-pu'} suffixes on the
> verbs, but otherwise it looks fine, to me anyway.
> 
> -- ter'eS
> 
> --- naHQun <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > So my manger had me translate this sentence for him,
> > and then write it in pIqaD on his whiteboard in his
> > office.
> > 
> > "Our gods are dead. Ancient Klingon warriors slew
> > them a millennium ago."
> > 
> > Which I translated as:
> > 
> > <Heghpu' Qunma'. wa'SaD ben HoHpu' tlhIngan
> > SuvwI'pu' tIQ.>
> > 
> > qar'a'?
> > Or do I need to be thankful it was a whiteboard and
> > not a tattoo?
> > 
> > ~naHQun
> > 
> > p.s. My e-mail spell checker told me <tlhIngan>
> > should be "Klingon".
> > 
> > 
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
> > Try Juno Platinum for Free! Then, only $9.95/month!
> > Unlimited Internet Access with 1GB of Email Storage.
> > Visit http://www.juno.com/value to sign up today!
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>

Back to archive top level