tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 18 21:35:44 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
*Maqbet* tidbit
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: *Maqbet* tidbit
- Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 09:33:09 -0400
- In-Reply-To: "William H. Martin"'s message of Sat, 14 May 94 15:55:28 EDT <[email protected]>
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Sat, 14 May 94 15:55:28 EDT
>According to Peter Garza:
>>
>>
>> Act I Scene I
>>
>> wIch be' wa': ghorgh maghomqa' maHwej
>> chuStaHvIS pagh jevtaHvIS pagh SIStaHvIS?
>This is good, though {maH} and {wej} should be separate words.
>The order is debatable, since placing {wej} second does fit the
>English "three of us" well, though it also makes sense to me in
>a non-English way to make reference to the three "us"s, in
>which case the numeric rule puts {wej} first. As it is, it
>sounds like "We #3", like "room #3". I'm open to further
>comment on this from others.
>On further thought, it might work better to say, "We who are
>three" in order to avoid sounding like "thirty"...
Well, if you're going to make it a possessive, and you're treating "wej" as
a noun (permitted by TKD), I'd think it should be "wejma'" (possibly
wejmaj, but we needn't open that can of worms again. I'd do wejma'). That
would probably be best, no?
~mark