tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 03 08:01:54 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for 2006/10/24
- From: De'vID <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for 2006/10/24
- Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 11:11:04 -0500
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from; b=lK+LWHybWF/EcswUyb9L/9MqRuLQbZVl/YzxciouWDHXAZ+vXn8Sr9SCYFUY1fa6XGbNrRmp7KpK7f2xTh0ol7E5NBDMQpxBoR8w2aYCBtvOQ3q/F5doV5j4J0v9BTZGNH411OJ6s/DTBv+wOMJGBAFpyiSry/gaCqXf4C94tIs=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
- User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
Steven Boozer wrote:
> If we can't say *{choluj} "you fail me" we *might* be able to say {jIHvaD
> bIlujpu'} using {-vaD} to mark {jIH} "me" as the "beneficiary" of your
> failing - but it still doesn't feel quite right.
The expression <jIHvaD bIluj> "you have failed for me" reminds me of one
stereotypical martial arts movie plot where the hero's
(girlfriend|sibling|friend|...) is kidnapped and the hero is forced to
lose a fight lest his (girlfriend|...) gets hurt. The (girlfriend|...)
is rescued, of course, and tends to the crestfallen hero's wounds while
reminding him that "the only reason you lost the previous fight was
because of me".
Is <jIHvaD neH bIluj> grammatical? The <neH> after <-vaD> looks a bit
odd, but I can't think of any grammar contravening that off the top of
me head.
--
De'vID