tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 22 08:06:39 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Analysis of {mo'taq lut}
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Analysis of {mo'taq lut}
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 11:06:34 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "Jeremy Cowan" at Mar 21, 95 11:28 pm
I missed this one first go by.
According to Jeremy Cowan:
...
> > * latlh jeychugh SuvwI' 'ach batlh ghajbe' vaj yay tu'be'lu'
> > @ If warrior defeat another but not have (with) honor,
> > @ one not find warrior's victory / then one not find victory
> > === Homophone ambiguity between the 2 meanings of {vaj}.
...
> And a quick note about Mr. Appleyard's translation. The position of vaj
> (even if it was SuvwI') between two sentences causes some confusion. It
> was intended to be the subject of the preceding verb, not the possessor
> of the following noun. Anybody know how to clear this up?
latlh jeychugh SuvwI' 'ach batlh ghajbe' SuvwI'qoqvam vaj yay
tu'be'lu'.
or:
... SuvwI'qoqvam vaj yay ta'be' SuvwI'qoqvam.
> janSIy
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |