tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Nov 03 07:39:43 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Do you put out for chocolate?
"Mark E. Shoulson" writes:
> >this wasn't acceptable. As was the attempt to use bang as the noun
> >'love' instead of 'one who is loved, beloved.' (Glen Prochel aparently
> >did these translations, go figure.) My attempt is:
>
> Naw, Glen uses "bang" for abstract love and doesn't put -ghach on bare
> verbs (he just uses the verb-stems as nouns, freely).
Well, whatever heinous crimes Glen is condemned for and convicted of
in absentia, I'd note that in every class of his that I have attended,
"bang" was only used as "one who is loved" and for the verb he used
muSHa'. And, despite defending the foul bare-stem practice in his New
Testament intro, he didn't perpetrate that particular crime in the
actual text (at least, the last time we spoke was adamant that he had
not - I haven't examined every jot and tittle).
* rejmorgh SoHchugh vaj yInlIj ghur'a'?* * Will all your worries add a single *
* [email protected] * * moment to your life? Mt.6.27 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://pages.prodigy.com/MN/xseg61a/mrklingon.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] | Prodigy: xseg61a | roj Suvlu'chugh vaj roj Sovbe'lu'