tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Mar 19 07:04:13 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- From: trI'Qal <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC
- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 15:16:11 -0400 (EDT)
>latlhmey jabbI'IDmey vIlaD 'ej jIghItlh je 'e' vIwuq
>jIQuchmeH nIv Daqvam
>"Shannon" Du'Daq jIyIntaH
>naDev yIntaH javmaH nuv
>vaghvatlh "acre" ngaS puHmaj
>ngem yotlhmey je ngaS puHmaj
>puHDaq Hemey puS ghoS bIQtiqHommey
>nadev wa' bIQtiq mach tu'lu' je
>puHvam wIghajmeH matay'
>wuqmeH ghom, ghIb Hoch
>mu'mey law'qu' vIghItlhchugh vaj DalaD 'e' Damev
Except for a place or two where charghwI' missed a captial letter, this was a
beautiful post. I would like to point our a few of the best points as
In the third line, charghwI' offered a very good alternative for a possibly
complicated law'/puS construction . I almost mis-interpreted it, though, as a
mis-translated "I am happy because this site is superior" What he has is much
simpler, cleaner, and more easily understood than any law'/puS contruction I
could think of, saying the same thing. majQa'!!!
I also wanted to note his use of -Hom in the 6th sentence from the end. The
noun suffixes -Hom and -'a' seem to be mis-used to mean "small" and "big," but
charghwI' gives us an excellent example of the proper use of -Hom on <bIQtIq>,
changing it from "river" to "creek." The use of -Hom and -'a' can and do
change the noun they are attached to in this fashion. This is a *superb*
example of their proper use.
Finally, charghwI' provides another good example of when NOT to use tense-
markers in his second-to-last sentence. The idea that the second half, <DalaD
'e' Damev>, occurs in the future is understood completely from the context.