tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Feb 17 09:47:03 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ma'veq: It's official
- From: "Nancy Snyder" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ma'veq: It's official
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:47:50 -0500
>>>: http://www.kingwoodcable.com/kdaq/index.htm
>>
>>ghay'cha'! pa'Daq vIjaHta'. QaQtaH 'oH 'ach moHaqmey mumISmoH 'e'
vIQubpu'.
>
>
>nuqjatlh? mumISmoH mu'meylIj'e'.
Translation: "What did you say? Your words confuse me!"
>"$#@%! I have gone to the room. It is being good, but prefixes;
>I have thought that it confuses me."
No! You over translated it! It starts off with a general invective. Then it
says "I have gone to the room", I was trying to say "I have gone there",
but the former still makes absolute perfect sense. Next, it says "It is
good." You don't need to actually say the "being" part, that doesn't
translate into english, the <-taH> is just there to enforce the the room is
continuously good, as opposed to just good in general. Then I said, "but, I
thought that prefixes confuse me." See, you mixed it up: it's not "but
prefixes", the "prefixes" is the object that goes with the <mumISmoH> verb
(they confuse me)!
>Whatever else is wrong with this, there's a rule on TKD page 66 that
>tells us that we can't put an aspect (type 6) suffix on the second
>verb of a Sentence as Object construction.
Secondly, I debate that I can't put <pu'> (a type 7 suffix) on <vIQub> to
make it "I thought ot" as opposed to "I think it". That is just wrong!