tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 17 09:56:21 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: New Method for Superlative?
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: New Method for Superlative?
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:56:18 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromSteven Boozer on Tue, 16 Apr 1996 22:14:05 -0700)
>Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 22:14:05 -0700
>From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>
>>charghwI' writes:
>>>> And on page 121 he writes <bortaS nIvqu' bortaS'e'>, which he
>>>> translates as "Revenge is the best revenge".
>>>
>>>AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
>>>Qu'vatlh! Whose side is this guy on? We now have the use of a
>>>stative verb used transitively in a parallel construction to
>>>the use of pronouns with an explicit subject.
>>Or it might simply be an error, and an intended {'oH} was lost.
>>This one is different enough from what we would expect that I
>>suggest we hold off even debating this until we can ask Okrand
>>for an explanation of the grammar behind it.
>>
>>-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>Or we could just check the citation (p.121) and see that the ORIGINAL POSTER
>made the mistake. The maxim actually reads: bortaS nIvqu' 'oH bortaS'e'.
>Before we fly off on tangents, let's not forget: yIvoq 'ach yI'ol!
Bizarre! I finally read through the whole book (at least the Klingon
parts) last night and I saw the line, and thought "Oh, this is the one
they're worrying about online..." but I didn't notice that the problem
wasn't there! Weird. You only see what you expect, I guess.
~mark