Re: tuQHa' vs tuQbe'

[Marc Ruehlaender <ruehli@iastate.edu>]

jIjatlh:
> >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'})
> 
mujang HovqIj; jatlh:
> Think of {tuQ} as "_an_gezogen haben", then {tuQbe'} would be "_nicht
> an_gezogen haben", and you could translate {tuQHa'} with "_aus_gezogen
> haben".
 
cha' Dosmey DIqIpba'. qay'be'. maQoch neH...
"angezogen haben" vImughmeH, <<tuQ'eghmoHta'>> vIlo'.
"ausgezogen haben" vImughmeH, <<tuQHa'eghmoHta'>> vIlo'.

> And "ausgezogen haben" seems to be appropriate when talking about employees
> at a strip bar.
>
quite so

> >(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'! ;-)
> 
pong ghojmoHwIjlI' vISovbe'mo', jIHeQ :)

                                           Marc Ruehlaender
                                           aka HomDoq
                                           ruehli@iastate.edu