tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 08 20:17:23 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: {mup} KLBC
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: {mup} KLBC
- Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 23:17:25 -0400 ()
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 07:38:55 -0700 (PDT) Alan Anderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> peHruS writes:
> >My feeling is that {mup} may be a glancing blow. Until I saw TKW regarding
> >hitting the target, I would have used {mup} for "impacting the target." Now,
> >I have seen that MO uses {qIp} here. I'm not sure how to use {mup}.
Unfortunately, we are left a bit to our own interpretation,
considering the paucity of {mup} examples. Given that a hammer
is called {mupwI'}, and given the many examples of {qIp}, I tend
to use {mup} when the emphasis is on physical contact (like with
a hammer), while {qIp} has more focus on the successful finding
of a target. {qIp} would work fine for describing the action of
a well aimed phaser or disrupter, while {mup} would not.
Meanwhile, in an argument over a traffic accident:
Do'Ha' mapaw'. tIch ghaj pagh.
ghobe! vIHbe'taHvIS DujwIj, jIH chomup SoH!
That or two boys arguing over who started a fight:
vImuppa' mumupbej!
HIja', 'ach bong qamuppu' 'ej chIch choqIpta'!
charghwI'