tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed May 25 04:15:31 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: News and Announcements
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: News and Announcements
- Date: Wed, 25 May 94 16:12:51 EDT
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Robert Baruch" at May 25, 94 12:58 pm
According to Robert Baruch:
>
>
> | From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>
> | According to Matt Whiteacre:
> |
> | > yIH wISopqang maH law'
> | > 'ach pobDaj DaSay'moH'a'
> | >
> | > (or should that be jIb in the last sentence?)
> |
> | On a tribble, I don't think it matters much. How could you
> | tell, anyway?
>
> chuSmoHbogh Dop yIH yI'Ij
I think that would make more sense if you reverse Dop and yIH.
It's the tribble's side (or I guess "end") and not the side's
tribble. You could also think of it as the side of the tribble,
and not the tribble of the side.
> | bangwI' vIQuchmoHmeH jatwIj vIlo'taHvIS yIH pob vISay'qangqu'moH
> | bangwI'vaD pagh veHmey vISovtaH
>
>
> jat <be hairy> Dalo'chugh vaj Qatlh banglI' DaQuchmoH 'e' Datu'
>
>
> Did I get the syntax of the then-clause correct?
>
> --Rob
Your problem is not so much the then-clause as it is that
embedded attempt to create a Sentence As Subject construction
where {banglI' DaQuchmoH} is the subject of {Qatlh}. Klingon
doesn't have a Sentence As Subject construction. It's one of
those missing pieces that Guido#1 in particular often bemoans
the lack of. Things WOULD be a lot easier if we could do this.
As it is, Qatlh and DaQuchmoH compete as main verbs in the
sentence, the result being confusion.
I'd try:
banglI' DaQuchmoHmeH QaQbe' pob ghajbogh jat'e'
or
pob ghajchugh jatlIj vaj banglI' DaQuchmoHmeH Qatlh Qu'lIj
charghwI'