tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Sep 02 02:09:07 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Hoghvam vIttlhegh
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Hoghvam vIttlhegh
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 02:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
At 03:16 PM 9/1/97 -0700, bI'reng wrote:
>ghItlh Qermaq:
>>ghItlh bI'reng:
>>>jevpu'DI', mIghwI'pu' chaHHa'lu'pu', 'ach reH QamtaH quvlaHwI'pu'
>I trying to say "When the storm has passed, the evil ones are undone, but the
>honorable ones are always standing." I was a little hesitant on using
>-chaHHa'lu'- but I think it works with one change: -chaHHa'moHlu'
Hmm. I was waiting to discover what chaH was a typo for before answering
this question. I feel you've loaded ideas onto the prounoun-as-to-be beyond
what it can support. I certainly had no idea what you were saying.
jev probably means storm as in "storm the enemy base" rather than a
description of what weather does. In this case you're speaking somewhat
metaphorically so either meaning will work.
As for chaHHa'lu'pu':
The suffix {-lu'} represents an indefinite subject. The pronoun chaH
indicates that they are the subject. It is certainly weird and I consider it
wrong.
I suggest {luchenHa'moHlu'pu'} for "they [will] have been undone"
>My reasoning:
>*chaH: they are* becomes *chaHHa': they are no more.* However, this has the
>idea that they undid their existence themselves, so I added *-lu'.* Of course
>this makes no sense without the *-moH* which I accidently overlooked. But now
>that I've written this, perhaps *lutaHHa'lu': they are discontiuned* would
>have been a better choice. It makes more sense and avoids the confusion of my
>first choice.
I don't think taH is transitive.
>I still believe *chaHHa'moHlu'* works but is a bit strange.
taQbej.
Qov ([email protected])
Beginners' Grammarian