tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jul 17 07:50:21 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

oops



>From: [email protected] (Nick NICHOLAS)
>Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 16:13:50 +1000 (EST)

>Hu'tegh! nuq ja' [email protected] jay'?

>Well, I've been cleaning up my backlog of email, as you'll know, and I came 
>up with this from late April.

>(charghwI's transcript of ST:V)

>=>Klaa: qIpmeH Qatlh'a' (Difficult to hit?) 

>Oh my god.

>Does anybody remember the whole "naghmeH chechqu'" business?

Yeah.

>And I've already changed all my texts, too. Just as well, I suppose. The
>alternative (naghlaHbe' chechmo') is cleaner.

It is.

>If anyone reckons qIpmeH Qatlh'a' doesn't support naghmeH chechqu', speak up!

I think it doesn't.  Even if I liked the "qIpmeH Qatlh" construction (which
I don't), I don't see how it follows that "naghmeH chechqu'" means what you
want.  After all, the "Qatlh" seems to be referring to the sentence before
as its subject (somehow)... and that's not the case with "chechqu'"!
Unless you say "-laHbe'", I really don't see how you're going to get across
the meaning of "too X to Y".

OBTW, apparently it's "ngagh", or perhaps "nga'"; Lawrence mentioned that
Okrand says it's a "ng-".  Sigh.

>Nick.


~mark

P.S. I haven't been doing my grammarian's task much whilst wading through
this past week's mail (I sort of hope to get past that mail within one
lifetime.)  I *might* go through it, but more likely I'll just start from
where I get back on track with that.  You guys can talk about the ones I
missed if you like.



Back to archive top level