tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 15 06:19:12 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: chu'wi' jIH
>From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
>Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 23:11:50 -0400 (EDT)
>Randallvo':
>> nuqneH!
>nuqneH, and welcome! naDev bIQuch 'e' vItul.
*blink*. Oops, took me a second. I read "Qoch" for some reason; I hope
you will disagree here? A very Klingon sentiment! :-) But I see what you
said.
>> cheghbe'bogh poHDaq yIQongtaHbe' 'a yIQamchoH
>> 'ej jaj tlhIv yInaDHa', ghop HoS yIlo'taHvIS.
>If you want {poH} to be the head of the relative clause
>{cheghbe'bogh}, then it can't have the {-Daq} suffix on it. Locatives
>are not subjects or objects (TKD 3.3.5).
>Boy, that first sentence sure is a whopper. The problem in the
>translation is the verb "sleep." In English, you're using a verb plus
>a particle to construct a complex meaning, "sleep away," which means
>more than the meanings of the two words themselves. {Qong} just
>doesn't carry that meaning. You need to play with it more, first by
>exploring what the original English means. Something like, {poH nI'
>yIQongbe'}.
Just one point here, Holtej, that needs to be made both on the original
*and* your correction. You don't use "-be'" on imperatives. That should
be "yIQongQo'".
>> yoDtargh
>--Holtej, Beginner's Grammarian
~mark, Grammarian doing the rare pulling-rank thing and feeling a little
weird about it.