tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 26 10:10:06 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: vay' and lu'
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: vay' and lu'
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 94 13:09:22 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Jeremy Cowan" at Dec 23, 94 6:34 pm
According to Jeremy Cowan:
>
> On Fri, 23 Dec 1994, Marc 'Doychlangan' wrote:
> > paq vIlaD I read the/a book
> > paq vIlaDlu' s.o reads the book/the book is read
> > paq vIlaDqang I am willing to read the book
> > paq vIlaDqanglu' s.o. is willing to read the book
> > *the book is willing to be read
>
> The vI- should not be on the second and third sentences, right?
Ummm. Make that second and FOURTH.
> Looking at this brings an interesting question to mind. Both versions of
> the translation for the last sentence are important. Here, it is
> non-sense, but there are instances in which you need both. ~mark says
> that both are correct, but others continue to argue the point. To those
> who argue, I would like to hear your ideas on translating the following
> sentences.
>
> If the weapon is fired (if one fires the weapon), one is willing to kill.
I think the best translation is:
HoHqang nuH baHbogh vay''e'.
Trying to use the tools you want used, I'd say:
nuH baHlu'chugh vaj HoHqang vay' 'e' toblu'.
> If surrender is refused (if one refuses to surrender), one is willing to
> be killed.
jeghlu'Qo'chugh vaj HoHqanglu'.
If you don't accept that {-lu'} transfers volition to the
object, then the closest I can come to saying this
unambiguously is:
jeghlu'Qo'chugh vaj Heghqanglu'.
Notice that I have to change the verb so it is intransitive so
there is no ambiguity. If I didn't have that option, I'd be
pressed to:
jeghlu'Qo'chugh vaj vay' HoHlu' 'e' lajlu'.
That's a royal mess, as far as I'm concerned. It works, but it
is not pretty. Mixing two different indefinite entities makes
it all so vague.
> > chen tIjwI'ghom the/a boarding party takes shape
>
> A passive verb. Great!
Good insight. I always knew there was something about the lone
verb {chen} (which does not exist in canon usage) that made it
different, but I had never put my finger on it.
> janSIy }}:+D>
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |