tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 08 10:33:22 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese ?
- From: Eric Andeen <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese ?
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 11:31:56 -0700
De'vID:
>>: Dochvam DaHarchugh, SoHvaD "USS Brooklyn" meH vIngev.
>>: = If you believe that, I'll sell you the bridge to the
>>: USS Brooklyn.
Voragh:
>> Although I quite agree with your comment, I do have one
>> minor correction:
>>
>> 'e' DaHarchugh ...
>>
>> As Okrand uses it, the noun {Doch} "thing" always refers to
>> a tangible, physical object. You cannot use {Dochvam} "this
>> thing" or {Dochvetlh} "that thing" to refer to the relative
>> pronouns "this" or "that" - a very common error among English
>> speakers.
> Thanks for the pointer.
>
> The one example, I think, of someone using {Doch} to refer to an
> abstract "that" was in the opening of PK. The "bumbling Terran" says
> something like {Dochvetlh yItlhap!} ("Take that!") before getting
> shot. Not a good example to follow, to be sure.
<Dochvetlh vItlhap> jatlh tera'ngan QIp reH 'e' vIQub jIH. Suy' jotmoHmeH,
vay' je' 'e' nIDlaw'. 'ach jISovchu'be'. much vIqawchu'be'. ghaytan
vIQoynISqa'.
pagh 'utlh