tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 02 10:57:14 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Qa'Hom qaDHom (KLBC)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Qa'Hom qaDHom (KLBC)
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 12:22:23 -0400
jatlh peHruS:
><< < DubDaq QottaH Saj. >>
>
>My point is that the suffix {-Daq} refers to a place in a locative manner.
I
>think that {targh DubDaq ghew tu'lu'} is okay. This shows that the bug is
>ON/AT the targ's back. I do not like, however, "lying on its back" being
>expressed by {DubDaq Qot}. I have a problem: I translate this as "lying
on
>[someone else's] back." I cannot conceive of an entity lying down upon its
>own back as the place of lying down. You see, I cannot escape from my own
>body and subsequently lie down on the back part of my own body. {DubwIjDaq
>ghopwIj vIlan} is okay.
I certainly appreciate this point, but look for a minute at the English
phrase.
I lie on my back.
Do I? It would seem to make as little sense in English as your point for
Klingon.
However, the phrase might be considered this way: I lie, and my body, not
including my back (because it's part of the idiom), is laying on my back
(and which, by implication, must be on a support of its own).
It's possible that this whole argument is at the point of splitting some
very, very fine hairs.
>Challenge: How do we say "lying on one's back"? My answer is way below.
>
>Qot targh. ravDaq 'oHtaH DubDaj'e'.
This is certainly an anatomically correct answer.
SuStel
Stardate 99500.8