tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 31 22:39:34 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: betleH
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: RE: betleH
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 00:44:02 -0500
Hetaq writes:
>waQchuqpu' betleHmey lo'bogh Humanpu' neH rap tlhInganpu'
>
>What I was trying to say was:
> "Klingons by any other name are still just Humans with entangled betleHs."
>[...]
>What I ended up with translating back to English is:
> "Klingons are only the same as Humans who use 'self obstructed' betleHs."
>'self obstructed' being the best I could do for the idea of 'entangled'.
>
>Any variations or corrections to this?
"self-obstructed betleHs" probably has to be said as a relative clause:
"betleHs which obstruct each other" {waQchuqbogh betleHmey}. That makes
for a lot of {-bogh}s in one sentence, but it is understandable.
I don't know if we can use {rap} like this. It's described as meaning
"be the same", not "be the same as". I don't quite remember what it was,
but something in canon recently seemed to point to the right way to say
something like this. The two things were conjoined as a plural subject,
and the verb had no object.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj