tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 26 08:26:17 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
ja' qa'vaj:
> Think of it this way:
>
> Message 1: I'm trying to understand how "I who am" works in English
> blah
> blah blah.
>
> Response: "I who am" will likely never be used in any meaningful way.
>
> Reply: "I who am the message sender disagree"
The phrase "I who am the message sender" confuses me. I suspect
you're still unconsciously thinking of it as a nonessential relative,
and that the meaning you're trying to get across would be properly
given as
"I, who am the message sender, disagree."
Now *that* makes some sense, at least in English. Parenthetically
identifying yourself as the message sender is understandable.
Without the commas, however, I still can't come up with a good reason
to use an essential relative that way, and I still can't read it
without wondering what I'm missing.
I hate to apply argument from authority, but since at least two
obviously skilled Klingonists are having trouble with what you're
trying to say, it seems pretty clear that the way you're trying to
say it doesn't work.
>> If you think these two cases are similar, please do try translating
>> the second phrase into Klingon. I see at least one surprise waiting
>> for you.
> DIvI' Hol mu'tlheghvetlh vIghItlhDI' <<qech DaDelbogh vIQoch>> vIQub.
{vIQoch} is weird enough that I can't get past it without having to
apply real concentration to the task of understanding what you mean.
{Qoch} means "disagree", and what its object (if any) might be is
unclear. It looks like you're treating it as "disagree with", but
that isn't how the word is defined.
-- ghunchu'wI'