tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 18 11:18:37 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lum tlhInganpu'
- From: "Robyn Stewart" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: lum tlhInganpu'
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:17:28 PST
- Organization: NLK Consultants, Inc.
- Priority: normal
charghwI' wrote:
> According to Qov:
> ..
> > The catastrophe obligates you to fix the device. janvaD
> >DutI'nISmoH lot.
>
> The grammar for adding {-moH} to a transitive verb is confusing
> and I believe you have it wrong. I read this as "The
> catastrophe obligates the device to fix you." It is arguable
> that you could have said {jan DutI'nISmoH lot}, though we have
> no canon examples that combine the transitive {-moH} and the
> prefix shorthand for a second-person indirect object. The most
> arguably correct version would be {SoHvaD jan tI'nISmoH lot.}
lugh charghwI'. How 'bout I take next week off? :)
> To be honest, I don't like this grammar a lot because it is so
> confusing and only use it if I can't find some other way to
> cast something. In this case, I'd use:
> lotmo' jan DatI'nIS.
I perceived the question to be about {-moH}, rather than the actual
translation. So I ratched it up by giving wrong information about
{-moH}. :-/
> No, it doesn't match the original English wording at all, but I
> think it really does carry the meaning more clearly than
> anything else suggested so far. DaparHa''a'?
vIparHa'.
- Qov