tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 28 19:32:52 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC: to be or not to be



>Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 22:25:49 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
>
>ja' muHwI':

>ja'qa' muHwI':
>>So you mean this is incorrect? (it does sound weird, though)
>>--> {megh 'oH nay''e' vutbogh loD}
>
>Again, it looks backwards to me.  "As for the dish which the man prepares,
>it is lunch."  "Lunch" is the subject in the Qov's sentence; if I *had* to
>say it in Klingon, it would come out {nay' vutbogh loD 'oH megh'e'}.  And
>there's no need to use another {-'e'} on {nay'} to avoid ambiguity here;
>the head noun of the relative clause is a thing, not a person, because the
>"to be" pronoun/verb is "it".
>
>But I agree with Qov: {megh vut loD} is much more straightforward.

Better still is {megh'e' vut loD}.  "Lunch is the dish the man prepares" is
one of those English focus-indicating phrasings.

~mark



Back to archive top level