tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue May 23 12:43:05 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC:yInQeD
- From: Anthony Curran <[email protected]>
- Subject: KLBC:yInQeD
- Date: Tue, 23 May 1995 08:04:26 -0500
I appreciate yoDtargh's response to my post. Here are some
corrections of my original.
>On Fri, 19 May 1995, Anthony Curran wrote:
>> chorgh'uSghew
>> *genes* ngaSbe'mo' Human *genome* 'e' chorgh'uSghew mojlaHbe'
>> *Barclay*.
>naDev <'e'> DanoplaH.
luq. jIyaj
>> Qaghqu'vammo' tlhinganpu' qempa' chaH targhew'a'mey 'e'
>> wIHarlaHbe'bej.
>mu'lIjDaq DIp Damo' <Qagh>, <-qu'> DachellaHbe'. wot mojaq 'oH
><-qu'>'e'. 'ej {-'e'} poQ <targhew'a'mey>.
>jIQochbe'bej. yIntej ghaHbe'ba' lutvetlh ghItlhwI''e'. Doghqu'
>lutvetlh 'e' vIHar.
chaq <<Qagh'a'>> 'oHnIS mu'vam'e'. I meant for this to mean "big
mistake," but I used the wrong suffix. The full correction would
be <<Qagh'a'vammo' tlhinganpu' qempa' chaH targhew'a'mey'e'
wIHarlaHbe'bej.>>
>> *The Phage* pongbogh *Voyager* HaSta 'e' wInuDnIS.
>chaq <HaSta>vaD <lut> <lutHom> joq DatamlaH.
lughlaw' 'e'
>Did you mean to attach {-'e'} to the head noun of the relative
>clause?
ghobe'. Maybe I'm not getting the sentence-as-object
construction correct. I meant to have 'e' refer to everything in
the sentence that preceded it. Is this not right?
>> *Neelix* taghmey nIHpu'novpu'.
><nIHpu'> <novpu'> je DachevnIS.
"oops". *typo* 'oH.
>> cha'maHDIch SaDDISDaq 'oH 'oghpu' tera'nganpu'.
>"Terrans have invented it in the 20th millennium."
>Canon indicates that we don't put {-Daq} on words indicating
>time. Also, ordinal numbers (numbers with {-DIch}) follow the
>noun.
>You can say {qaStaHvIS vatlhDIS cha'maHDIch} ("during the 20th
>century"). poHvetlh Dajatlh 'e' DaHech 'e' vIHar, qar'a'?
<<SaD>>vaD <<vatlh>> yItam. 'ach <<loghDaq lulengpa' 'oH 'oghta'
tera'nganpu'>> vIjatlhnISpu'. mu'tlheghvam lugh law' wa'DIch
lugh puS.
>> yIntaghHom ngo'laHbe' *Dr. Zimmerman* 'e' vIHarbe'.
>"I believe Dr. Zimmerman can not be old small life support
>system." wot muj Dalo' 'e' vIHar. nuq Dajatlh 'e' DaHech?
"oops". Qagh 'oH <<ngo'>>'e'. bong mu'vam vIlan. <<yIntaghHom
'oghlaHbe' *Dr. Zimmerman* 'e' vIHarbe'>> vIjatlh 'e' vIHech. "I
do not believe that Dr. Zimmerman could not design a small life
support system."
>> janHomqu' 'oghlaH DIvI'
Qagh 'oH <<janHomqu'>>'e'. *very small devices* vIjatlhnIS. In
other words, I intended to say that the Federation is good at
nanotechnology. lughbe' <<-qu'>> 'ach lughlaw'be' <<-'a'>>.
Would <<janHom'a'>> mean "very small device"?
>>yInQeDyaS SamnIS *Paramount*.
wejlogh *oops*. *TKD*Daq <<QeDpIn>> vIleghbe'pu'.
>> There. Several concepts eluded me while I was writing this.
>> These include "gene", "technology", "before", and "direct (as
>>in
>> direct ancestor)". I think I approximated "holographic" with
>> <<HaSta Sub>>.
>As for "direct ancestor", does the word "direct" really mean
>anything, in other words, is there such a thing as an "indirect
>ancestor"?
"direct ancestor" is one of those phrases that evolutionary
biologists use which doesn't make sense out of context. I would
be more proper to refer to "directly related organisms". A full
explanation of what that means is probably beyond the scope of
this list, since I don't have the technical words in tlhingan-Hol
to accomplish that explanation.
>> qo'ran
>yoDtargh
qo'ran