tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Apr 26 10:15:34 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: Clause ordering...is this right?
- From: "Andeen, Eric" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: Clause ordering...is this right?
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:18:23 -0700
jatlh juDmoS:
> Hung tlhab ghap luqotlhtaHHa' Hung luSuqmeH tlhabchaj lujeghqangbogh.
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).
jIjatlh:
> 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.
jatlh quljIb:
> {Hung tlhab joq qotlhHa'taH} is the wanted phrase. "Freedon and/or
> security they continuously mis-deserve."
Actually, I don't think it is. <Hung tlhab joq qotlhHa'taH> means that they
misdeserve *at least one of* "freedom" and/or "security". The point of the
original quote is that they deserve neither, so they must misdeserve *both*.
pagh
Beginners' Grammarian
tlhIngan Hol Mailing List FAQ
http://www.bigfoot.com/~dspeers/klingon/faq.htm