tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 19 12:19:41 1993

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: wot vItu'laHbe'law'



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 DSTRADER@delphi.com
> >
> >                         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'



Back to archive top level