tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Aug 04 09:53:24 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: pa'mey wamtaHqu'!
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: pa'mey wamtaHqu'!
- Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 12:53:15 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Priority: NORMAL
Overall, good analysis. Still a common grammatical violation
persists.
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999 02:36:49 -0400 Steven Boozer
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
> mu'tlhegh'e' jatlh neHbe'pu' ghot 'ar net Sov?
>
> Still doesn't feel right, though. But it's too late to think clearly.
First, {net Sov} is not a question and it is not needed here at
all. We can drop it and lose nothing (and gain clarity). That
leaves us with:
mu'tlhegh'e' jatlh neHbe'pu' ghot 'ar?
I strongly suspect that {neH} falls under the same Sentence As
Object rule that restricts the use of Type 7 verb suffixes. If
we drop {-pu'} we lose no meaning.
mu'tlhegh'e' jatlh neHbe' ghot 'ar?
I think this works grammatically, though I really think we are
working with a slightly idiomatic or cliche expression that
might better be expressed more freshly. The original English was
in response to something someone said. The response was
something like, "How many people have not wanted to say THAT?"
I offer that it might be clearer as:
mu'tlheghvetlh wIjatlh wIneHchu' HochHom maH, qar'a'?
You are not really asking for a number as an answer. You are
asking for confirmation that what you are saying is accurate.
That's what drove me to recast it. What question can you ask
which seeks the answer that you want?
> maj ram.
>
>
> --
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
Will Martin
UVA ITC Computer Support Services