tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jun 04 23:36:23 2001

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

RE: A little Poetry



I agree with every problem with what I said. Were I in such a situation,
more likely I'd say {chang'eng Damojlaw'}, assuming that I could speak at
all. I was trying to come up with something and it didn't work.

Some of the OTHERS apparently worked. yap. jIyon.

charghwI' 'utlh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Andeen [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 2:02 PM
> To: '[email protected]'
> Subject: RE: A little Poetry
>
>
> charghwI':
>
> >>>juH vIyItlaHbe'. jIleghchu'be'. SoHpu' vIleghlaH.
>
> ghunchu'wI':
>
> >> I tried pluralizing {SoH} once in what I thought was an appropriate
> >> context, addressing the comment to someone who I'd expect to have
> >> understood it.  She didn't understand it, perhaps because {SoHpu'}
> >> wants very much to be interpreted as a "to be" verb having a
> >> perfective suffix.
>
> DloraH:
> > But in this sentence the pronoun is placed in a noun position;
> > there is already a verb in the sentence.  (It is certainly
> > unusual usage tho.)
>
> >> {SoHmey} seems somehow more appropriate for your example anyway. :-)
>
> > But they are most likely not scattered about.  All of him would
> > probably be close together, next to each other.
>
> As much as I enjoy clever wordplay, I just can't rationalize this. <SoHpu'
> vIleghlaH>, even in this context, sounds like an extremely drunk
> or confused
> foreigner. One problem is that, unlike English, <SoH> already has
> a plural -
> <tlhIH>. I realize that you're going for something different, but the
> existence of <tlhIH> makes plurals on pronouns very marked, and
> since <-pu'>
> is also a verb suffix as well, it's just too weird. There's also the issue
> of the prefix, which I think has to be <qa->. That makes the plural suffix
> sound even weirder, since I would half expect <Sa-> instead of <qa->.
>
> <cha' SoH qalegh> might work. It also has the prefix problem, but
> it doesn't
> seem so bad. <cha'logh qalegh> is even better.
>
> pagh
>



Back to archive top level