tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 12 13:25:08 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KBLC: <-vetlh>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:51:49 -0800
>From: "Andrew 'Ska' Netherton" <[email protected]>
>
>
>> >latlh lughIj vay''e' DIchargh.
>> >
>> >Um, that's the short version!
>>
>> So short it's even missing the -bogh suffix on lughIj. It probably should
>> be just ghIjbogh; after all, we're not specific on how many people the
>> scarers scare; I'd presume it's more than one. You could also go with just
>> "ghIjwI' DIchargh": we conquer scarers.
>
> I was wondering about that. After all, it's not just ONE person
>or thing that scares. I was thinking of using <latlhpu'> - after all,
>we're not going to go around the galaxy beating the hell out of ugly
>statues. Just beings that rub us the wrong way.
That's not what you asked. You asked for "we conquer those that scare,"
and "ghIjwI' DIchargh" is a good translation of that. "latlhpu' ghIjbogh
vay''e' DIchargh" is "we conquer ones that scare others," which is not
really any better, when you think about it. Um...
vay''e' SuvvIpbogh latlhpu' DIchargh
We conquer ones whom others fear to fight
Something like that?
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMrB4LcppGeTJXWZ9AQH3HQL+Jm1uUkzUjVaePqvwJk8jtRsYwoIvrlNO
BPXH0um9FENvZWDrDR6NjCaiOCP4gAyuiaI1Imn7rUpdVm17IMZUQ7/Q4Ac02jM3
HjaO9yNE9Omp4rfAUHSGn2zPZVFfvm1s
=QjiS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----