tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 19 12:19:41 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: wot vItu'laHbe'law'
- From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: wot vItu'laHbe'law'
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 15:06:09 EDT
On Oct 18, 8:00pm, Paul J. Clegg wrote:
> Subject: Re: wot vItu'laHbe'law'
>
> >> SaqaD: Who here can figure out how to say, "The commander who is bolder
> >> than the officer destroyed the enemy space station."?
> >>
> >> ! @ # $ % ^ & * (Guido1) * & ^ % $ # @ !
> >>
> >> -- End of excerpt from [email protected]
> >
> > jIlaj
> >
> >
> > jagh tengchaH Qaw' la'vam
> > la'vam jaq law' jaSvetlh jaq puS
> >
> > Just because you like to build long, convoluted sentences in English
...
> >-- charghwI'
>
> I see your point, and you're right. However this doesn't, IMHO, solve all
> the questions of the law'/puS constructions...
>
> Actually, I'd put "la'vam jaq law' yaSvetlh jaq puS" first.
>
> One question I would put would be whether or not one could reverse the
> construction, such as "yaSvetlh jaq puS la'vam jaq law'", to emphasize the
> officer's lack, instead of the commander's excess.
I've been so negative lately... I still would not reverse the sequence.
Simply, when talking to a Klingon, it is prudent to stick exactly to known
grammatical constructions. Misunderstandings can be... unfortunate.
> Of course, one can
> always argue that Klingons wouldn't need to make such a differentiation.
> Of course, they could always be fit into a compound sentence:
> la'vam jaq law' yaSvetlh jaq puS 'ej jagh tengchaH Qaw' la'vam.
>
> ...Paul
By jove, I think he's GOT it!
-- charghwI'