tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Mar 01 12:48:32 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: wa'netlh Qapla' (Was: Re: *Elvish* Hol)
- From: Bill Willmerdinger <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: wa'netlh Qapla' (Was: Re: *Elvish* Hol)
- Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 15:24:17 -0500
- Organization: IKV Crystal Dagger, Klingon Assault Group Rochester NY
- References: <[email protected]>
Qov wrote:
>
> At 21:07 98-02-27 -0800, Qob wrote:
>
> >"I have not failed 10,000 times. I have successfully found 10,000 ways
> > that will not work." -- Thomas A. Edison
>
> }Hmmm...
> }
> }"wa'netlhlogh jIlujbe'pu'. Qapbe'bogh wa'netlh mIw vItu'meH jIQappu'."
> }
> }qar'a'?
>
> I'd use {Qapbe'bogh wa'netlh mIw vISammeH jIQap...} and then I pause to
> wonder whether Edison meant {-pu'} or {-ta'}. Which do you think?
I never even thought of using {Sam}. Definitely better. I used {-pu'}
because he didn't deliberately set out to find non-workable solutions.
If the quote had referred to his successes, then I definitely would have
used {-ta'}, but in his case I thought {-pu'}... although I can think of
arguments for using {-ta'} as well.
> }yIloS! SeHlawDaj qIp Qov nach 'e' vIQoy'a'? {{:-)
> }
> }SKI: Qob translates the quotation and pokes gentle fun at Qov.
>
> qech Damughmo' SeHlawwIj SoH qoj SaqIpbe'.
Huh? Oh! "My keyboard and/or you". I didn't catch the conjunction at
first; {qoj} is one we don't see alot of.
> (Hmm, I've never had to think about whether (you + it) was a second or third
> person object before. But a plural object including "you" must be "you
> (plural)").
That's a good point. I don't think I've encountered it before either.
--
Qob la' (tlh.w.D. quttaj ra'wI') [email protected]
tlhIngan Hol yejHaD ghojwI' http://www.frontiernet.net/~qob/