tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Oct 07 08:56:22 1999

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: Hov leng - lengwI'

On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 22:57:24 -0400 TPO <> wrote:

> Dajqu'!
> Hov leng - lengwI' vIbejta'
> toH, boghqa' B'Elanna
> lalDan qel Hov leng
> 'ej DaH, tlhIngan wa'DIch, Human "Adam" rurbogh tlhIngan'e', wISov
> [qortar] 'oH tlhIngan wa'DIch pong'e', Qunpu' HoHbogh tlhIngan'e' pong'e'
> tlhoy tlhIngan wo' Degh lo'lu'
> batlhHa' HeghwI' lungu'lu'meH, wo' Degh lo'be'nISlu'

This is not a correction. It is an opinion I hope only that 
people might reflect upon. I would have said:

HeghwI' quvHa' lungu'lu'meH, wo' Degh lo'be'nISlu'

The reason for this is that generally, {-wI'} seems to be used 
as a nominalizer for single verbs, not verb clauses, so I would 
have assumed that {batlhHa'} referred to {ngu'} and not to 
{Hegh} and it seems odd to dishonorably identify a dead person. 
I'm assuming that you want to identify a person who died 
dishonorably, which is a whole lot like identifying a 
dishonorable dead person. While I understand that you might 
consider this to be missing the meaning, since the person might 
have generally been honorable, but just happened to have died 
dishonorably, I suspect that this slightly missed meaning is 
less of a miss than the idea that the person was dishonorably 

But again, this is just an opion. Among peers.

And I only state it because it was jarring to run across it, 
even though I know what you meant...

> ghe''or lojmItDaq yoy Degh; 'ej 'e' vIlajlaH
> 'ach B'Elanna qabDaq latlh DaqDaq je  yoybe' Degh
> tlhoy Deghvetlh lulo' Hov leng chenmoHwI'
> DloraH


Back to archive top level