tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 11 17:33:22 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: nabwIj - tlhIngan wo' batlh (&KLBC)



According to [email protected]:
> 
> 
> Alan A. writes:
> >>wa'DIch, *pIcarD* wIHoHnIS
> >This "adverbial" use of {wa'DIch} isn't mentioned in TKD, and I don't know
> >of any canon examples of it.  I don't like it.
>  Why not?  It clearly translates to "First, we must kill Picard".  I'm not
> quite sure you think that this doesn't work.  Isn't the point of adding
> {-DIch} to numbers to list first, second, etc...?

While I do think there is a canonical use of {wa'DIch} by
Okrand (and I intend to look for it perhaps tonight), I do see
ghunchu'wI''s cause of concern. You add {-DIch} to numbers in
order to describe NOUNS, not VERBS. That's what he meant when
he said "adverbial". TKD definitely does NOT give us any
grammatical justification for adverbial use of numbers with
{-DIch}. Meanwhile, Okrand also provides us with later material
from time to time and I believe that he has done so for
{wa'DIch}. I remember running into it when I was translating
something within the past few months. That's why it sticks in
my memory. It was definitely new grammar, similar to the
adverbial use of {motlh}, which until the newer canon was only
useful as a verb.

> Qapla'
> 
> -Thiago Miranda, ra'wI', toQDuj: "tlhIngan wo' batlh"

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |


Back to archive top level