tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 02 19:55:24 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Sorry this is so long! (was KLBC: on naming convention)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Sorry this is so long! (was KLBC: on naming convention)
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 22:55:03 -0500 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Mon, 2 Dec 1996 17:56:58 -0800 HurghwI' <[email protected]>
wrote:
> At 02:10 PM 12/1/96 -0800, you wrote:
> >Sunday, December 01, 1996 11:46 AM, jatlh HurghwI':
> >
> >> >> qay'be'lIj 'oH nuq?
> >> >
> >> >{qay'} is NOT a noun. It is a verb. {qatlh SoHvaD qay' jabbI'IDwIj?}
> >>
> >> Not quite the same . . . how about:
> >> SoHvaD qay' nuq?
> >
> >maj. 'ach mu'tlheghwIj qar law' mu'tlheghlIj qar puS. {{:-P
>
> bIlugh.
I've always preferred: bIqay''a'?
It is shorter and more precisely the nature of the problem.
After all, I don't really care what YOUR problem is. I just want
to know if you are going to continue to BE a problem. If you
have a problem, don't bother ME with it. If you do, then YOU
(and not your problem) are the problem which annoys me.
Of course, you can be more precise to the specific situation
with:
bIqay'qang'a'?
or
bIqay'taH'a'?
or
bIqay'qa''a'?
or
bIqay' DaneH'a'?
or the ever popular:
bIqay'taHchugh vaj bIHegh.
> >> >> janglaH Hoch jIjangpa', 'ach pab lughmoHlaHbe' vay' jIjangpa'.
I find it easier to understand if phrases which are essentially
adverbial in nature (like anything with {-pa'}) are placed
before the verb for which they offer a time setting, since both
adverbials and time stamps (which are adverbial in nature)
precede the verbs they describe. Also, Xbe' vay' usually comes
across more cleanly as X pagh. Given these changes, consider:
jIjangpa' janglaH Hoch, 'ach jIjangpa' pab lughmoHlaH pagh!
Does this seem clearer? Also, in this single example, {latlh}
might work better than {vay'}, since what you really mean is
that nobody BUT YOU. So:
jIjangpa' janglaH Hoch, 'ach jIjangpa' pab lughmoHlaHbe' latlh!
pab vIlughmoHlaH jIH neH! pab DalughmoHchugh vaj bIHegh!
[Sorry. Got a little carried away.]
> >> >nuqjatlh?
[evidence that clarity could be better]
> >> Dayajbe''a'? vImugh:
> >
> >mu'tlheghlIj Qav neH vIyajbe'.
>
> I realized after I sent this how harsh my words sounded, so I wanted to say
> that I wasn't attacking SuStel, but merely trying to sound like a warrior. I
> apologize for that. mughojmoHta' QaghwIj. (This would make a good
> replacement proverb, you think?)
Human SoHba'.
> >> Everyone can reply before you, but anyone can not correct before you.
> >
> >bIjatlhHa'. <bIjangpa' janglaH Hoch, 'ach bIlughmoHpa' lughmoH pagh.>
I've never seen intransitive use of a verb with {-moH} before.
Interesting. A little repulsive, but interesting.
> >--
> >SuStel
> >Beginners' Grammarian
> >Stardate 96919.7
>
> -HurghwI'
> Hovjaj 96921.2
tIqqu' jabbI'IDlIj. jIDoychoHmo' jImev.
charghwI'