tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Mar 15 02:48:33 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: KLBC: Spring Break

>From: "trI'Qal" <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 15:13:04 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: Re: KLBC:  Spring Break
>>DaH poH'a' vIghajmo' jIghIQlaH 'ach jIneHqu'nISmo' jIghIQQo'
>>qaD 'oHpu' mughta'ghach'e'
>I think Qanqor already answered this, so if he already mentioned anything I 
>say here, just ignore me. {{:)
>This was a nice attempt, but it has a few ewrrors in it.  First is the use of 
>the suffix -Qo' on a non-imperative verb.  You can't do that.  If you want to 
>say "never", but in a non-imperative/command sense, use <not>.  That is what 

My little cheat sheet had "Don't!, won't" for -Qo'...  I wanted to say I
won't be vacationing; I've already said, I think, I meant vum instead of
neH; so it would have been "because I must WORK (ie. a lot of work), I
won't be vacationing".

>	mu'tlhegh vImughta'mo', muqaDpu'.
>	"Because I translated that sentence, it challenged me."
>A bit more "wordy" that the original, but also a bit easier to follow (IMO).  
>Again, that is just a stylistic point; what you had was grammatically correct.

I believe it might have been krankor who came up with one better:
muqaDpu' mu'tlhegh
or something like that (the translation/sentence/whatever challened me),
which completely removes the because clause...


Back to archive top level