tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 12 15:43:12 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: mu'meywIj tetlh
Andeen, Eric wrote:
> lab K'ryntes:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> In a message dated 1/11/1999 2:32:09 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> >> [email protected] writes:
> >>
> >> << paq chu' wIHevDI' 'e' vISovbe'. >>
>
> This one doesn't work because <'e'> is a stand in for the previous sentence,
> and you don't have a complete sentence - just a <-DI'> clause.
>
> >> I think I understand what you are trying to convey here. I had to do
> >> a doubel-take, though, because I did not find a head noun for {wIHevDI'},
>
> >> then there was the pronoun {'e'}. Do you mean {paq chu' wIHevbogh poH
> >> vISovbe'},
>
> This doesn't quite work either. <paq chu' wIHevbogh poH> is "the time of the
> book we recieved", but that doesn't mean "the time we received the book".
> The <poH> is associated with the <paq>, and has nothing to do with <Hev>.
> What is the "time of a book"? Is it the publication date? Is it the time it
> takes to read?
>
> > This is probably close. I was trying to say, "I don't know when we
> > will receive the new book."
>
> >> or maybe {paq chu' wIHev 'e' vISovbe'} (more likely?)?
>
> > No, because we know we're getting a new book eventually. We don't
> > know when.
>
> > How 'bout this....
>
> > paq chu' wIHevDI' vISovbe'. if I just drop the 'e'?
>
> Not quite. You are saying "When we recieve the book ... I will not know
> <something>". This sentence gives us no clue as to what that <something> is.
> Anyone hearing the sentence in context would assume the <something> was the
> topic of the *previous* sentence.
>
> This is an instance where you can seriously bend your mind looking for a
> good way to warp this into one hideously complex Klingon sentence. Or you
> can just break it into two simple Klingon sentences:
mIwlIj vImaSbej! :)
>
>
> tugh paq chu' wIHev. poHna' vISovbe'.
>
> pagh
> Beginners' Grammarian