tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 26 09:59:20 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Clause ordering...is this right?
jatlh juDmoS:
> > Hung tlhab ghap luqotlhtaHHa' Hung luSuqmeH tlhabchaj lujeghqangbogh.
ja' pagh:
> Suffix order: <luqotlhHa'taH>.
>
> I'm also not sure about this use of <jegh>. Every canon use I know of is
> intransitive, so I'm not sure if <jegh> could take an object. I think <woD>
> would work very well here as an alternative.
ja' juDmoS je:
> > The purpose clause ' Hung luSuqmeH ' (in order to obtain security)
> > precedes the relative clause ' tlhabchaj lujeghqangbogh ' ( they
> > which are willing to surrender their freedom). This entire
> > construction follows the head noun ' luqotlhtaHHa' ' (they are
> > undeserving of it) because it is the subject of the sentence. The
> > object of the sentence is the phrase ' Hung tlhab ghap '
> > ( either security or freedom).
ja' pagh je:
> I don't think <Hung tlhab ghap> works. This says that they mis-deserve
> (makes perfect sense in Klingon; not so much in English) either security or
> freedom, but not both. I think what you mean is that they mis-deserve both
> security *and* freedom.
{Hung tlhab joq qotlhHa'taH} is the wanted phrase. "Freedon and/or
security they continuously mis-deserve."
quljIb