tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 19 00:00:25 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: *Maqbet* tidbit



According to Mark E. Shoulson:
> >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...
> 
> >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

	My question is whether or not it makes sense to make it
possessive at all. "Our three" doesn't necessarily map well to
"the three of us", or does it. Maybe I'm letting
Englishcentricity affect my judgement here. I'd still favor
"The three who are we..." or dump the whole issue of threeness
and just refer to "we". Surely the witches know how many
constitues their first person plural... It just seems like we
are going to a lot of trouble to express a subthought that is
insignificant. We are allowing what might be a casual toss in
the English to convolute the Klingon enough to destroy the feel
of an otherwise simple statement.

charghwI'



Back to archive top level