tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 10 11:03:22 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: qaStaHvIS poH jIQubtaH

[email protected] on behalf of Qov wrote:
> I would have said {qul 'oH poH'e'.  qulvetlhDaq mameQ Hoch}
> "Time is a fire. We all burn in that fire."
> A few people would immediately jump on me for the construction {mameQ Hoch}

SIbI' Sup SuStel!  (We should've used that in the tongue-twister contest!)

> but I think {mameQ Hoch maH} is a reasonable construction and omitting the
> pronoun gives {mameQ Hoch}.

I don't like that justification.  I'm willing to accept {Hoch maH} for the 
time being (especially in light of constructions like {chaH bIng} [KGT p. 
24]), but I'm not willing to accept that one can drop a pronoun when it's 
doing more than just matching up with the verb prefix.  Here, {maH} takes a 
very nounish role, as the noun which {Hoch} modifies.  You drop that noun, and 
{Hoch} is no longer modifying a noun, and reverts to its simple noun meaning 
itself.  If that happens, you get a violation of the rule of {rom} (KGT p. 
172).  Ya' gotta keep the {maH}.

Why is the "we" so important?  The saying is not talking about us in 
particular; it could refer to anyone.  I think this sounds and works much 
better if you say

qulvetlhDaq meQ Hoch
Everyone burns in that fire.

Hmmm . . . I wonder if Soren's line is meant like that, or like

qulvetlhDaq meQtaH Hoch

There's a great deal of difference there.

-- 
SuStel
qoH vuvbe' SuStel
Stardate 97692.9

Back to archive top level