tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 29 09:13:23 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC Re: *'atlantaDaq qaStaHvIS *'olImpIq
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC Re: *'atlantaDaq qaStaHvIS *'olImpIq
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 11:17:19 -0400 (EDT)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message fromSaraH on Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:53:21 -0700)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 20:53:21 -0700
>From: SaraH <[email protected]>
>HIja', HIja', HIja'!
>bepmeH tlhIngan Hol Dalo' QaQ law' bepmeH DI'vI' Hol vIlo' QaQ puS! mu'mey
>marqoS vIQochbe'bej.
Just two quick comments.
You are likely correct in using "bepmeH", since Okrand also uses it for an
unspecified subject (even when the subject is known), in "Dochvetlh DIlmeH
Huch 'ar DaneH?" Still, it would be clearer (and sound better to my ear,
not to mention be less English-centric, and that's a fun goal to have) to
say "bIbepmeH" and "jIbepmeH".
Also, it should be "*marqoS* mu'mey vIQochbe'bej": possessor first.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMfzV+MppGeTJXWZ9AQElDgL/ZuenbKCv8OrDaAmT2z2+38A68+5hV2/I
gBjPhnKle+WhJnKIC/hgGUk1dDt3ylgE3hdEgtWpl10+XfeAvppUjoZdxdtiwmdw
Lx6BC138BfSvUkdDSYyoFGEgsXxtNfAl
=nx9x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----