tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 28 12:55:20 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qatlhbe'
- From: Jarno Peschier <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: qatlhbe'
- Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 21:57:19 -0100
At 12:52 25-11-95 -0800, you wrote:
>> >>qatlhbe' {{:)
>> >
>> >Is this correct Klingon for "Why not?", along the same line that {nuqjatlh}
>> >is correct Klingon...?
>> >
>> >peSHIr
>>
>> I am not the grammarian, just a student of tlhIngan Hol with a real interest
>> in it? I would not use {qatlhbe'} as "why not?" I would move {-be'} to the
>> verb. This gives:
>
>I tend to lean against this translation. Let us keep in mind that
>"Why not?" is really an idiom of the Englished langauge and
>idiom seldom translate well.
My question was sort of meant as a rethorical question, implying that I
didn't think it would be correct Klingon. I just wanted to be sure. qatlho'.
Jarno Peschier, [email protected], 2:2802/245.1@Fido
162:100/100.1@Agora, 74:3108/102.1@QuaZie, 27:2331/214.1@SigNet
___________________________________________________________________________
What was was, before was was was? Before was was was, was was is.