tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 05 20:05:35 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: KLBC A Simple Story

> The intent here was to convey the officer as standing on the top of the 
> embankment and throwing the spy over the side. The spy would perhaps land in 
> a ditch, from which he could run away without dying upon impact. (not 
> necessarily that the officer _wanted_ the spy to run away, but of course the 
> officer is being careless). Perhaps ngechHom would be a better choice.

> ngechHomDaq ghoqwI' woD yaS QeH.
> "The officer throws the spy into the ditch."

> I think, from a stylistic point of view this works better as the spy is 
> being put where he belongs, i.e. in the ditch. It only makes sense to keep 
> woD in this context, to convey the low regard he has for the spy, i.e. no 
> better than trash.

I think you're overthinking this. When I hear the verb <woD>, the action I think of does not fit with actively fighting with someone, no matter what your opinion of him. I could see it being used if he were heaving the spy's corpse into the ditch, or maybe even if the spy were unconscious and dying, but while he's still alive and fighting back, it juest doesn't make sense. <jaD> is the way to go.

>>I felt the warrior always knew where his weapon was; most likely 
>>hanging on his belt.  He didn't need to look for it, or find it, or 
>>discover it.  He simply needed to take it out of the holster.  (This is 
>>how I read the story anyways.)

>bIqar. I decided lel (to get out) would be the best choice here. He knows 
>where his weapon is, he just needs to get it out.

Qapchu' <lel>.


Back to archive top level