tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 20 19:43:59 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: See why I'm worried now?
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: See why I'm worried now?
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 22:44:20 -0500
David Wood writes:
>(nItlhDu'Daj [to cross]...)
>chaq molwijDaq ngaSwi' gharghmey vitu'.
No, this says "container worms" again. {ngaSwI' gharghmey} is a kind of
{gharghmey}. [Klingons don't cross their fingers; it doesn't work.] If
you want to talk about a "can of worms", you have to be talking about
kind of can. {gharghmey ngaSwI'} is a "worms' container" -- not quite a
container *full of* worms, but it's close.
>... this should be syntactically correct -->
>
>'e' wISovpu' Hoch jIH je
Well, the verb prefix looks okay, but the object is a bit strange.
{'e'} is supposed to refer to the previous sentence, but you haven't
put it after any sentence in particular.
>...would THIS be syntactically correct? -->
>
>lI'ghach botemnIsbe' Hoch SoH je.
> ^^-- (prefix for y'all/it)
"All and you ('even you') don't need to deny... usefulness?" Using
{-ghach} on a naked verb is very unusual, and there are often better
ways to say what you mean. I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase
"deny usefulness" -- do you intend to refer to the existence of the
concept "usefulness" in general? Do you mean the usefulness of some
specific object or procedure? I think you need to find a way to use
a verb here instead of forcing {lI'} into a noun role, maybe something
like {lI' 'e' botemnIsbe' Hoch SoH je} "All and you don't need to deny
that it is useful."
>Five K-sentences, five chances to screw up.
>There are a great many canons pointed at my head...
If this ("canon" vs "cannon") is an intentional pun, it's pretty good.
If it's accidental, it's even better!
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj