tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 28 17:03:29 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: tuQHa' vs tuQbe'

jatlh HomDoq:

>jatlh HovqIj:
>> >> It's your choice. However, {tuQ} doesn't mean "be dressed", but
>> >
>> >> {be' tuQHa'} - "he/she/it doesn't wear a woman".
>> >
>> >shouldn't it be {tuQbe'} for "she doesn't wear it"?
>> >{tuQHa'} sounds more like "wear wrongly" to me.
>> >(like if you misbuttoned a shirt or something)
>mujang HovqIj, jatlh:
>> I didn't change it into {tuQHa'} because the {-Ha'} seems to imply that
>> women just got undressed. First they {tuQ} clothes, and then they
>> the clothes. I couldn't find a good English translation for this
>> (*dis-wear?). Anyway, I admit that, without further context, it can
>> be misunderstood as "wear wrongly"... a fashion show of some crazy
>po Sut tuQ'eghmoH. vaj Sut tuQ.
>Sut tuQHa''eghmoHDI', pagh tuQ, Sut tuQbe'.
>'e' vIQub.

qay'be'. 'ach wa' DuHvam neH tu'lu' 'e' vIHarbe'.

>My excuses to all non-German-speakers out there if I use
>some German here to (maybe) make my point clearer..

German? Good idea. Same excuses for me...

>to me {tuQ} means "an_haben_" as opposed to "an_ziehen_"
>which is {tuQ('egh)moH}, and I really don't see how
>there can be an opposite to that (other than just {tuQbe'})

Think of {tuQ} as "_an_gezogen haben", then {tuQbe'} would be "_nicht
an_gezogen haben", and you could translate {tuQHa'} with "_aus_gezogen
And "ausgezogen haben" seems to be appropriate when talking about employees
at a strip bar.

>> >Le bon roi Dagobert avait sa culotte  l'envers...
>> ta'Homvetlh vISovbe'. lut naQ yIjatlh.
>*France*ngan puq bom 'oH.
[bom vIpe']

>(I took some liberties in the translation, of course...)

qay'be'. tlhIngan Hol vIyajmeH Qu' ngeD law', *France* Hol vIyajmeH Qu' ngeD
puS. *France* Hol ghojmoHwI'wI' yIja'Qo'! ;-)

>                                           Marc Ruehlaender
>                                           aka HomDoq


Back to archive top level