tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 24 08:34:50 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: "monotonous"
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: "monotonous"
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 08:34:44 -0700
At 07:21 97-09-24 -0700, qoror wrote:
}mujang Qov
}>I would not read this as "monotonous."
}>
}>{pe'vIl} means "forcefully" or "by force."
}>{rap} means "be the same."
}>
}>With no context at all I would translate this as either "they were
}>forced to be alike" or maybe "they were similar in a way that forced
}>itself on you, they were strikingly similar"
}
}Well... Never mind, I apologise.
yItlhIjQo'! qaHIvbe'. qaghojmoH vIneH neH.
}reH po'qu'law' vay' jabbI'IDghomvaD vIlI'pa'.
"Something always seems to be highly skilled before I send it for this
listserver" ? Took me a while to parse that, I as expecting {po'} to refer
to the skill of a person not of a work. I think it would read more easily
ith the subordinate clause first. And I'm not just saying that because
charghwI' does.
It isn't grammatically incorrect, it just took a while to understand.
}vIlI'pu'DI', nuDlu'chu'. jIHvaD lI'. Second opinions are good.
When I have sent it it is thoroughly examined. It is useful to me.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian