tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 28 10:03:50 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: good old "with"
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: good old "with"
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 94 22:00:17 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <9407280416.AA06745@ bush.cs.tamu.edu>; from "Erich Schneider" at Jul 27, 94 11:16 pm
According to Erich Schneider:
>
>
> ghItlh James Lyle <[email protected]> :
>
> >What is a good way to express the meaning 'with something/someone'?
Generally, the following is good advice, but a couple little
errors seem to have crept in...
>
> pu'HIchwIj vIlo'taHvIS romuluSngan yIHoHta'.
> romuluSngan yIHoHta' pu'HIchwIj vIlo'bogh jIH.
> romuluSngan yIHoHta'meH pu'HichwIj vIlo'.
Gee. Imperitive prefix with the "accomplished" variation on the
perfective suffix. That's a real synapse twister. Ummm. I tried
to translate each of your sentences:
"HEY YOU! FINISH KILLING THAT ROMULAN WHILE I USE MY PHASER!"
"HEY YOU! ACCOMPLISH KILLING THAT ROMULAN - I AM THE PHASER
WHICH I USE!" [I don't see the grammatic link between these two
sentences, which I've separated with the hyphen. Since you
didn't put {-'e'} after {jIH}, there is nothing indicating
whether you or the phaser is the head noun, and the imperitive
prefix on {HoH} disconnects this relative clause from being the
subject of the verb. This leaves me to use {jIH} as a verb of
its own separate sentence.]
"HEY YOU! IN ORDER THAT YOU MUST KILL THE ROMULAN, I USE MY
PHASER!" [This is an extremely loose translation, since I can't
figure any meaningful way to make an imperitive purpose clause.]
All this clears up if you replace {yIHoH} with {vIHoH}.
I apologise for being a wise ass. Your post was good. The
repeated typo just resulting in some waaay strange sentences
that were at LEAST as interesting as the ones you certainly
intended...
charghwI'
> -QumpIn 'avrIn (Erich Schneider)
> [email protected]