tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Feb 01 21:47:18 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ropyaHDaq
- From: Terry Donnelly <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ropyaHDaq
- Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 23:47:11 -0600 (CST)
ghItlh charghwI':
>While ghunchu'wI' has promised to comment on the post as a
>whole, I just have one line I want to comment on:
>> <jIyaj. chu'DI' to'baj 'uS 'oH nay''e' QaQ, 'ach ngo'choHDI' -
>> SuQ.>
I agree this is a clunky sentence; I don't like ti that much myself
(especially the {nay''e'}), although I don't fully understand your
point about using "to be" twice. Are you saying that attributive
phrases should not be used in equational sentences?
However, I don't like your alternative, either:
>to'baj 'uS chu' Soplu'DI' QaQ nay', 'ach ngo'choHDI' SuQchoH.
This is actually how I had it at first, but I changed it because this
sentence lacks a parallelism I wanted to set up. In my sentence, the
two halves compare states: "when fresh/when old", which your version
entirely lacks: "when eaten/when old".
How about this for a simpler (too simple?) alternative:
chu'DI' QaQ to'baj 'uS, 'ach ngo'DI' SuQ.
>charghwI'
-- ter'eS