tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 05 21:01:00 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 323

• From: Matt-5 <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 323
• Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 16:00:29 +1100 (AEDT)
• In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

> ghItlhpu' taghqIj: 
>
> >mu'tlheghwIj DayajlaHpu'. "We are not who we are" vIjatlh vIneHpu' 'e' 
> >Dayajpu'. qatlh mu'tlheghvam vIjatlh vIneHpu' Dayajbe'pu' neH. 'ach
> >potlhbe' meqwIj. potlh pabwIj'e'. 
>
> ghItlh peHruS:
>
> > tlhIngan Hol mu'ghom mIch jav DoD cha' DoD vagh yInuD qama'pu' 
> > vIjonta' vIneH mu'tlhegh 'o'Daq "The past tense of the translation 
> > (I wanted...) comes from the aspect marker on the first verb" ghItlhlu' 
> > vaj {Dayajpu'}vo' mojaQvetlh wInopnIS qar'a' 
>
> HIja'.  Qagh taghqIj mu'tlegh. 

bIlughHa' - Qaghpu' jIH'e'. :) (is this usage of <Qagh> canon? It seems 
to me that the word <Qagh> is not really suitable to apply to inanimate 
things - they are not 'in error', they are 'an error'. Maybe this is just 
an idiosynchratic use of English where I live...)

> pab chutvam qawlu'meH qeqqu'nISlu'taH. 

jIQochbe'qu'. (qeqqu' - is this canon, or a <Qagh>?)

taghqIj

    C /\ T  
   F /()\ C  ...CM is ATMA! 
  C /____\    ...http://ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au/~cthulhu
    GANTA

• Prev by Date: Re: qeylIS betleH
• Next by Date: Re: {-bogh} vs {-meH}
• Prev by thread: Re: {-bogh} vs {-meH}
• Next by thread: Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 323
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level