tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri May 29 12:47:49 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: On (was Off) topic: I need a help in translation
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: On (was Off) topic: I need a help in translation
- Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 15:47:44 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Marc Ruehlaender" at May 26, 98 03:30:51 pm
According to Marc Ruehlaender:
>
>
> ja' charghwI':
> > > Hol latlh Dalo'taHvIS, qechvam yIqon.
> >
> > loQ mumISmoH <<Hol latlh>>.
> >
> Hol wa' Dalo'taHvIS qech DalaD.
> Hol cha' Dalo'taHvIS qech Daqon.
> <<Hol latlh>> vIlo'DI', Holvam cha' vIDel 'e' vIHech.
<<latlh Hol>> Dalo' 'e' vIpIH. *Okrand* chovnatlhna'Daq DIp
tlha' <<latlh>> not 'e' vIlu'. chaq vISamHa'pu'.
> <<yajHa'lu'>>, <<yajlu'chu'>> je vIghItlhtaHvIS, Hutlhmo' <<-laH>>,
> cha' mu'tlheghvam yajHa'be'lu'. bIQoch'a'?
ghaytan tlha'Ha'chuqpu' mu'meylIj. <<...<-laH> Hutlhmo'...>>
'e' vIpIH. Do the suffixes lack, or do the words lack the
suffixes?
> on the other hand, I think, this one is a bit too much...
> the time stamp is supposed to modify {Hutlh <<-laH>>},
> and the whole thing should serve as a causal clause for
> the main sentence, where the {-be'} really ought to
> negate the {-mo'} on {Hutlh}... :-(
Just a wee bit convoluted, and you didn't even mention the
double negative...
> > to indicate plurality in the pronoun, omitting the noun
> > suffixes, and there's no problem with the grammatical
> > "disagreement" with the grammatically singular nouns {pagh} and
> > {Hoch}. This is quite elegant. I like it.
> >
> choquvqu'moHneS!
batlhlIj Dabajta'.
> jatlh Human bIDwIj... jatlh tlHIngan bIDwI':
> tlHIngan jIH }}:-}
tlhIngan bID neH Daghajchugh vaj chaq mu' <<tlhoS>> Dalo'laH...
> Marc Ruehlaender
> aka HomDoq
> [email protected]
>
charghwI'