tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 23 14:42:33 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: reH Su'ba'pa' quS yInuD. / KLBC
"Andeen, Eric" wrote:
>
> > HIq vIjabtaHvIS yopwaHHom runqu' vItuQtaH.
>
> <run> is described as "be short (in stature)", so it apply to people,
> animals, most likely trees and buildings, but probably not things like
> pants.
> How about < yopwaHHom tIqHa'>? (although my teenie yopwaHHom really needs the
> -qu'.....)
>
>
> > quSDaq HIq Humqu' lIchchoHlu'pu' 'e' vISovbe'.
>
> lIchlu'lI''a' qaStaHvIS wanI' DaDelbogh? If not, then it's probably better
> to say just <lIchlu'pu'>. The <-choH> means that the <HIq Humqu'> had
> *begun* to pour, and implies that it may well be still pouring.
I believe the spill was deliberate, as that was my chair. I soon discovered
that the petaQpu' at that table had no semblance of honor but did have a very
poor sense of what is funny. I don't know which one of them did it, but it was
deliberate.
is this better?: quSDaq HIq Humqu' lIchlu'lI' 'e' vISovbe'.
>
> > pay' vIHotchoHchu'. 'uptaH ghu'. jIQeH. jImogh.
>
> va.
what is <va>? where can I find it in the books?
>
> > DIrwIjvo' Qopchu'meH pughHom Hum 'ej vIloSnISta'.
>
> I assume you meant <'e' vIloSnIS>. Also, the <-ta'> doesn't make sense,
> unless you meant <-ba'>.
I didn't know 'e' works with the verb "wait". I thought it was only for verbs of
observing or knowing. I'm confused. I used -ta' because I wanted to say that I
had accomplished waiting for it to wear off. But your way sounds better, I wish
I'd thought of it.
Pillow