tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 28 09:05:44 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {neH} again (Re: An offer you shouldn't refuse)
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {neH} again (Re: An offer you shouldn't refuse)
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 12:05:30 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]> (message from Ivan ADerzhanski on Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:06:22 -0800)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:06:22 -0800
>From: Ivan A Derzhanski <[email protected]>
>
>Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> >From: "Kenneth Traft" <[email protected]>
>[...]
>> >tlhIngan wo'Daq patlh Degh chu' 'oH <<meppatlh(tm)>>'e'.
>> >SuqlaH neH tera'nganpu'! wo'Daq Dotlh'a' Dachavbej DaneHchugh vaj
>>
>> Woops. This is that "only" problem we're running around trying to work out
>> again, isn't it? I think that no matter what we wind up saying, "SuqlaH
>> neH tera'nganpu'" is not right. It means "Terrans merely can get it." If
>> anything, it's "SuqlaH tera'nganpu' neH". 'Iwvan, my head's so turned with
>> this, what do you think?
>
>That's just it. {luSuqlaH neH tera'nganpu'} (note prefix): `Terrans
>merely
>can get it (but can't sell it)'. {luSuqlaH tera'nganpu' neH} `only
>Terrans
>(but not Ferengi) can get it'. <thinks: having English as one's native
>language must be a fearful curse if it makes it hard for one to get such
>simple things right>
Awwwww. I'm not SO thick. I used to understand it, and I had thought that
"neH" does work for this here. It's just that I lost confidence in my
understanding of the meanings, and of your arguments, so wanted to make
sure.
~mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQB1AwUBMu4x18ppGeTJXWZ9AQH8pgL7BWypa4FzvpvQYVpG88O40BYXusUuQyuj
tnT6t411CvREQrUl9W4XcfjZlIjgy+OQojnzTIEoiQr2leO5FfRBKPFrDHfEFJDv
Hla9Y9GeHTQw1uVTvGEFSIIIVrfnaTvV
=ntIn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----