tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 05 18:05:58 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Re: worn out (vavwI' loDnI')
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Re: worn out (vavwI' loDnI')
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 21:05:26 -0500
"William H. Martin" writes
>What I suspect is
>that you are rationalizing like crazy to cover your butt when
>you are clearly wrong and too stubborn to admit it.
Stubborn, yes. Rationalizing like crazy, no. I had worked on my little
sentences for three days, and had my own little internal debate, similar to
the the one that has been going on this week, except my feelings did not get
hurt. The thing that bugged me and still stings is that many of the comments
seemed (to me anyway with words like "gibberish", "...that's not Klingon",
someone even yelled "..that makes no sense AT ALL") to imply that I was just
throwing something out without much thought. For three days, I asked myself,
"Is the verb 'to allow' more like 'to know' and 'to see', both of which take
the 'e' construction, or is it more like 'to want' which requires a non-'e'
construction?" I chose the non-'e' construction (Big Mistake). So instead
of making up these excuses on the fly, as I read my mail, these were issues I
had already thought about.
Sorry about the punctuation, I hadn't really noticed the periods, just the
triangle brackets"<>".
Thank you for your pointers on translation and your personal testimonial that
you had similar problems when you started out.
Moving on, I have been giving my little sentences some thought and I think
the first one of the two needs a little work. The sentence in English
doesn't want the bastards to start wearing you down, I think it is speaking
about possibility. So the sentences, new and improved, would go something
like;
nIQopmoHlaH taHqeqpu' 'e' yIchaw'Qo'.
lugh 'e' jItul
tIm
(With my luck "to hope" won't take the 'e' construction)