tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 29 14:14:03 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tuQHa' vs tuQbe'
- From: Marc Ruehlaender <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: tuQHa' vs tuQbe'
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:14:00 CDT
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
[email protected]