tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 28 09:53:50 2014
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Vows
- From: "De'vID" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Vows
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 18:53:40 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=b9GTIsOD7AdDs1U94sDq3+aqe1qXj6N6O+1TFY4LHU0=; b=MyoqcoTGFNc414hPvyIYKJWIMKpUV/J4rptlt0yZY4OlffuvBTGJptaf3r35Pk7t6n SB5u481w3d+OwLIkKU1+fs2jO2FAb98Y151BUiQatKW3c675VCiPAxWWRsqNrG4HzB2k JHPt/gmwAo8Ynjyy2UjWVTKqxwCVNrC8pN7eBce3aNvkxE9eiOhR6FKJMQTmiYC5ylaF ZlDMk9TNERbG9OseNR9Ai4w8/1z1Z1AIi80P86xV3Jiey3iYvAIcpUlJnQXAf+YgQLvB 3JSbC2owPYH/sVIWXnSh63sjbbG/RGMvu6fKsg7DB3mDlIBQVc7NYbdh28w+HlNF/Nqn tB1A==
- In-reply-to: <CAFK8js2zyJj3ZXZHb_UeFZRxoFUYk=YK6Tx7nPpbwpYn56YQ3w@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/>
- List-id: <tlhingan-hol.kli.org>
- List-subscribe: <http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
- References: <CAG_hjBTg8fK0_xh9RnjtRpkyRniUjuBC5vwa_9_W3TLVFZ3PcQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFK8js2zyJj3ZXZHb_UeFZRxoFUYk=YK6Tx7nPpbwpYn56YQ3w@mail.gmail.com>
be''etlh:
>> pIj maHaghmeH jIvum 'e' vI'Ip
ghunchu'wI':
> I see what you mean about the phrasing here. If you really want the
> {...'e' vI'Ip}, I'm having a hard time coming up with anything better.
> How about {reH maHaghlaH 'e' vIpotlhmoH 'e' vI'Ip}?
I wonder if Klingons have a superstition about avoiding "inauspicious"
sounding words at weddings, the way some Human cultures do. I was
going to suggest that for this sense of "work", I think Klingons would
use {baj} rather than {vum}. But then I realised that I also didn't
like {vum} because of its homophone.
be''etlh:
>> Also, I'm not sure I like the mixture of first and second person, but I'm
>> not sure how to rephrase.
ghunchu'wI':
> You mean the {bangwI' SoHtaH}? I didn't notice anything odd about it.
It was a little out of the place with all the other "I... we..."
sentences. How about {jIyIntaHvIS, reH qaQej}, which places the role
of the "actor" on the speaker, in line with the other sentences?
--
De'vID
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.kli.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol