tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 27 07:13:28 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: A *with* suffix?

• From: [email protected]
• Subject: Re: A *with* suffix?
• Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 10:13:16 -0500 (EST)

In a message dated 97-11-27 04:00:41 EST, SuStel writes:

<< 
 Though your main point, translation of the preposition "with," is perfect,
 these examples contain redundancies.  Since the action of heading towards
 the bar is not important, but the fact that that's the final destination, I
 think the verb {jaH} works better here.  {ghoS} is more important when
 describing the course itself.  Using {-Daq} with {ghoS} is considered
 redundant.
 
 tachDaq jIjaHDI' mutlhej torgh.
 tachDaq jIjaH.  mutlhej torgh.
 tachDaq jIjaH 'ej mutlhej torgh. >>

-------------peHruS----------------
Right now, I wish I knew all the sources. But, I don't have it written down
and I can't remember clearly where it comes from.  I really do remember,
though, MO has used the third example above:  tachDaq jIjaH 'ej mutlhej
torgh.

I've got to get a complete archive of ALL canon so I can go back and research
it.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Archive of canon
    • From: Steven Boozer <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [proposal] translation for directions.
• Next by Date: Re: ASS HOLES
• Prev by thread: Re: A *with* suffix?
• Next by thread: Archive of canon
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level