tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 20 17:15:45 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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


Am 19.06.2002 23:12:25, schrieb charghwI':
>qaDvam vItIv.

bIlughbej. vItIv je jIH. Dajqu' Qu'.

>> monDaq qaS wanI' taQ - yajlaHbe' yejquv.
>monDaq qaS wanI'mey taQmo' lI'be'choH yejquv.
Why is the -mo' at the taQ? I would say this phrase
{monDaq qaSmo' wanI'mey taQ lI'be'choH yejquv}
{monDaq qaSbogh wanI'mey taQmo' lI'be'choH yejquv.}
Am I wrong, or is this just something else?

>> qaStaHvIS wa' jar, ngab nuvpu' law', qaStaHvIS latlh ngab puS.
>qaStaHvIS wa'wen ngab cha' jar ngabbogh nuvpu' mI' motlh.
Yes, I also thought about something like this. But I still think it's a little too weird construction. Or has 
this been discussed before? I haven't been on the list for a while... jIbuDta', 'ach rIn. :-)

>> motlh pIHbe' ghu'vam, 'ach ngabDI' vay' reH pat tu'lu'law'.
>motlh pIHbe' ghu'vam, 'ach rurchuq wanI'meyvam. 
Nice discription :-)

>beyond machinery, electronics and other coordinated devices. {mIw} is probably 
>closer to what you were seeking.
Yes, you're right that's better!

>> pIch ghaj *Kohan* tlhach 'e' Har tlhIngan wo' ghoqwI' 'ach toblaHbe'.
>> DaH ghoqwI' yaS matlh SoH. tlhach bejchu'ghach 'oH Qu'lIj'e'.
>qara': tlhach bejchu'meH Qu' yItoy'.
Sounds more like klingon }};-)

>Overall, your translation is quite good. I'm not suggesting that you abandon 
>anything you have and adopt my suggestions. I'm just giving you food for 
>thought. Take what you like of this and ignore the rest.
Yes, this gave me a view on different ways to say it. 
I also would like to know if it's grammatically correct! I am a mughwI' with honor, and I promised to make a 
perfect work. 'ej not lay'Ha' tlhInganpu', qara' ;-)
Should I put KLBC in the subjectline?

Thanks for your opinion!


Back to archive top level