tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 25 14:37:43 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: Christopher Doty <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:35:06 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bZ+fMv2SrEyw012/QY5GTfGrfh+YOJC1ymQwOi3vCBk=; b=k1mWM+DTg87wJkTQbJ2qWh8dhZn8SQR8/toQPL4PEOh4n3E4EQP7IwOMMX6vZwwi1F 1s18srqEyPx5g4lEH4+KplRKqb2aP0Q/4jF62y2l+EHa8CxmTucvIKoqpfTgCvi1ZeLj BDfouj1QZQ6xysG5Ignp6VAj1lThRNNRfIsrI=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=jJB0bNnzI/xr5cN71tvGO35r12Ee20k404hmWeU33B9U/IniyJL/3ql+bQVf7NiLMP 5q56r88lgSIF7OZkxo86NKZDymQO86sBHzomoHd9DzFT12yIY0v99wPbk62XHWdtrZaC cOOIfB1mNUJ5ZUweSQ93vHFjhnvdL6I7KVvBE=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Huh, yeah, I guess I could have said something different, but I kind
of like what I said :p
I don't get -vaD as being "for the benefit of," just "for, intended for"...
I'd say
> yIHvaD may' 'oH may' quvHa''e'
Would be "As for a dishonorable battle, it is a battle for tribbles
(as opposed to, say, warriors)" instead of
> As for a dishonorable battle, it is a battle, for the benefit of tribbles.
as you said. Am I still missing something here?
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 14:12, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
> Christopher Doty wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 13:34, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Christopher Doty wrote:
>>>> Huh... It's not a N-N construction, though; the <yIHHomvaD> and the
>>>> <may'> aren't in a N-N phrase?
>>> But that's how you've used it. The first noun modifies the meaning of
>>> the second noun. What kind of {may'} "battle" is it? It's a *{yIHHomvaD
>>> may'} "minor tribble battle." That's the use of the noun–noun
>>> construction, but the first noun isn't allowed a Type 5 suffix.
>>> Beneficiaries (and locatives, etc.) only modify verbs.
>>>
>>> Now, there *are* a couple of phrases on the Bird of Prey poster which do
>>> this, and I'm not surprised, given that it started as a list of English
>>> noun phrases to be translated. (I have no doubt that Okrand fell into
>>> the same trap you did.)
> >
> > I still see them as separate, though... I'm not using one to modify
> > the battle, I'm saying (or trying to) that the battle is to be given
> > over to tribbles, not that a dishonorable battle is a tribble battle.
>
> Oh! Let's see...
>
> yIHvaD may' 'oH may' quvHa''e'
> As for a dishonorable battle, it is a battle, for the benefit of
> tribbles.
>
> This doesn't carry the sense of the battle being "given over to"
> tribbles. It means that a dishonorable is a battle, for the benefit of
> tribbles. The tribbles benefit from the dishonorable being a battle.
>
> My dictionary tells me that "give over" is an informal British phrase
> meaning to stop doing something. I know the phrase, but it doesn't
> spring immediately to my American English-thinking mind. It seems
> idiomatic to me.
>
> Some other ways to say what I think you're trying to say:
>
> batlhHa' Suv yIH 'e' yIchaw'
> Let tribbles fight a dishonorable battle.
>
> batlhHa' Suv yIH neH
> Only tribbles fight dishonorably.
>
> --
> SuStel
> tlhIngan Hol MUSH
> http://trimboli.name/mush
>
>
>
>
>