tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jul 15 19:44:53 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: QaQ yInwIj



On Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:17:06 -0700 (PDT)  David Trimboli 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] on behalf of William H. Martin wrote:
> > wa'leS ram *contra dance*Daq jIjeS.
> 
> reH *contra dance*Daq bIjeS.  *contra dance* nuq?

wej 'uj Sum'chuq cha' qoch 'ej bejchuq.
qochpu'vam DopDaq Qam cha' latlh.
cha' tlhegh chenmoH nuvpu'. qochDaj bej Hoch nuv. latlh tlhegh 
bej wa' tlhegh. bejchuq tlheghmey.

"Contra line"mey 'oH theghmeyvam'e'.

tlheghDaq "dance" nuvpu'vam.

"Contra Dance" 'oH "Dance"vam'e'.

> > loSleS *movie* <<Sut qIjDaq loDmey>> wIlegh jIH latlh jupwI' je.
> 
> I presume you were going for the "scattered all about" feel?

Well, now that I've seen the movie, I'm considering this to be 
less of a mistake than I originally thought it to be.
 
> That's one of Krankor's Type 5 nouns modifying another noun.  I don't like it. 
>  I don't buy it.  {Sut qIj tuQtaHbogh loDpu'}  (which kinda ruins the cute 
> phrasing of it, but not everything is going to work out like that.  You could 
> use instead {Sut qIj loDpu'} "Men of Black Clothes.")

I just saw it as a sentence fragment. Whatever the men do, they 
do it in black clothes. The locative was meant to modify the 
unspecified verb, not the existing nouns.
 
> Hmmm . . . maybe extremely formal wear like what the Men in Black wear would 
> be {Sut'a'} . . .

That makes sense.
 
> > 'IQtaH jupvam 'ej loQ vIQuchmoH vIneH.
> 
> lugh DuplIj.  tlhaQqu' lutvam.

jIQochbe'chu'.
 
> -- 
> SuStel
> Beginners' Grammarian
> Stardate 97529.8

Stardate 97538.9
charghwI'





Back to archive top level