tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 22 18:30:29 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lengwI' vIyaj vIneH
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: lengwI' vIyaj vIneH
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:25:59 -0800
jatlh DujHoD
>jatlh tuv'el:
> >can -be' or -'qu exist more than once in a single
> >construction?
>
> jang Qov:
>
> >Sure, if it's meaningful. It /paq vIleghDI', vIlaDbe'laHbe'/. "When I see
> >a book, I can't not read it." It can be awkward, but it's less awkward than
> >the English, there.
>
> Wouldn't {paq vIleghDI' vIlaDnIS} be simpler and more concise, without
> changing the meaning too much?
paqmey vIlaDnISbe', 'ach jItlhu' 'ej vIlaDchoH. Unfortunately I often
start to read books that I have absolutely no need to read.
Yes, it is often possible to express another meaning that is close to the
original, with fewer words, but the question WAS whether the combination
was meaningful, and it is.
Maybe you'd prefer:
qaQaHbe'qangbe'. bIHeghlI' 'e' vIbejQo'. - I'm not willing to not help
you. I refuse to watch you die.
De' Sovbe'chu'be'. Dajoy'chugh ghaytan qawchoH - He is not completely
ignorant of the information. If you torture him, he will likely remember.
Sopqang'be'moHbe' lot. tar pIHmo' Sopqangbe'choH. - The castastrophe
didn't make him unwilling to eat. He became unwilling to eat because he
expects poison.