tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 22 01:19:09 2006
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for 2006/10/19
- From: pm5 <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for 2006/10/19
- Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 16:11:35 +0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=euVoN11xecAxDLj2YQiX78Fz/m92ynlL4tvlv3B07CkqTpSZB/x0cdHLifgbynTAcKn2ofr058dgvahIbCC6WEtQ05xyM/p1l3EdTul4DG0G+oFIuMASnky2uhHjsB5FOa7r4Y3HetpKiTKtmWr20bOdkVsYNSkEBFTph6B1Bb0=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On 10/22/06, Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- pm5 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > DIlbot: {bItuQHa''eghmoHta' pagh porghlIj
> > vIlegh 'e' botlaHbe' SutlIj.} (3)
> > Dilbert: "Are you naked or am I developing X-ray
> > vision?"
> >
>
> I like your rendering of "X-ray vision", although I'd
> use {botbe'choH} instead.
That would mean "you're clothes used to prevent me seeing your body, but not
anymore". Indeed it is a more accurate translation.
> You are using {-ta'} consistently as if it is a past
> tense marker. I get that you are trying to show
> how much you've accomplished, but I would leave it
> off after the first use on {rIn}. I think that would
> establish that everything is already done, and then
> youo wouldn't need to keep repeating it.
The same advice applies to all type 7 suffixes, right? I think they all
establish such a context.
pm5