tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 31 18:54:33 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Bhagavad, Part 1
- From: Topic Goran <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Bhagavad, Part 1
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 14:55:20 METDST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Nick NICHOLAS" at Apr 1, 94 4:48 pm
- Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
jatlh nIchyon:
> Hu'tegh! nuq ja' Goran Topic jay'?
>
> Well, someone's gotta do it, and I don't see anyone else doing it, and Goran,
> you're finding out what it's like to produce loads of text noone reads
> (heheh), but here I go...
cholughmoHqang 'e' vIQubpu'. cholughmoHqang 'a lulughmoH pabpo'pu' 'e' DaloS
'e' DaghItlhpu'. cholughmoHqangbe'chugh yIlughmoHQo'. qaraDbe'.
ghItlhvam vIlI'ta' nuv puSbe'vaD Dajlaw'mo'. jIlughHa'pu'ba'.
> =jatlh *Dar'araS'a'*:
> =nuq luta'ta' lalDan DaqDaq, *quru'* yotlhDaq mughbogh Suvqangbogh
> =puqloDpu'wI' *panDu'* puqloDpu' je, *Sanjaya'*?
>
> Said D: S, what did my sons and P's sons, willing to fight (and?) translate
> at the Guru field, in the religious place, accomplish?
>
> I don't know why they were translating, but I think you're overloading your
> relative clauses. This phrase is opaque.
Qu'vatlh! 'ej Qu'vatlh vIja'qa'! muj mu'! "ghom" 'oHnIS.
"group" Hech "mugh" "ghom" ghap, 'ej jIQaghpu'!
> =3.
> =*panDu'* puqloDpu' mangghomvam tIn'e', chenmoHbogh ghojwI'Daj'e'
> =*DarupaDa'* puqloD'e', yIlegh, SovchoHmoHwI'wI'.
>
> Too many -'e's. You're conscripting them for both relative clause head marking
> and apposition marking. Drop the latter.
>
> Teacher, see this great army of P's sons, which his student, the son of D built
>
"ghojwI'lI''e'" 'oHnIS.
nuq QaQ law' latlh QaQ puS?
) *panDu'* puqloDpu' mangghomvam tIn'e' chenmoHbogh
) *DarupaDa'* puqloD DaghojmoHbogh yIlegh, SovchoHmoHwI'wI'.
pagh
) *panDu'* puqloDpu' mangghomvam tIn'e' chenmoHbogh ghojwI'lI'
) *DarupaDa'* puqloD yIlegh SovchoHmoHwI'wI'.
mu'meylIjmo' qatlho'qu'.
Qapla' qoranvo'