tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 06 10:06:40 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC : A somewhat advanced translation...
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: RE: KLBC : A somewhat advanced translation...
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 13:06:05 -0500 (EST)
>Voragh has already commented on <yo'>, and the rest of it is quite good. I
>particularly like <Hegh 'oHbe'bogh Hegh>. You might consider an alternative
>for the last bit, though: <..., 'ej Haghlu'>. Just something to think about.
>pagh
<Hegh 'oHbe'bogh Hegh> vIparHa'qu' je. That is a really cool phrase.
*pagh, a question came up when I was trying to read this sentence.
When you say "A is B", it's <B 'oH A'e'>, qar'a'? The <-'e'> suffix
as I recall is necessary. Thus, "A is not B" would be <B 'oHbe' A'e'>,
and "A which is not B" would be <B 'oHbe'bogh A'e'>. Perhaps "death
which is not death" is too abstract an example. Let me use another.
Suppose I wanted to say "Kahless is a warrior". <SuvwI' ghaH qeylIS'e'>,
qar'a'? Then "Kahless, who is a warrior" is <SuvwI' ghaHbogh qeylIS'e'>.
This puts the <-'e'> on <qeylIS>. But what if I wanted to use this in
a phrase where the topic of the <-bogh> clause (sorry I'm not a linguist,
I hope you understand what I mean) is <SuvwI'>? Is this possible? In
English, something like "I see the warrior, whom Kahless is". (I
realize that I can recast this to "I see Kahless who is the warrior",
the example is artificial but I couldn't think of a better one.) Would
that be <SuvwI''e' ghaHbogh qeylIS>? <SuvwI''e' ghaHbogh qeylIS'e'>?
DaH jIHvaD yIQIj!
--
De'vID
-------------------------------
Beam to http://www.StarTrek.com
Now featuring the Star Trek Store and
the official site for Star Trek: Insurrection.
------------------------------