tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 28 16:32:59 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

RE: "one nation, under God"

> *America* Sepmey tay' joqwI'vaD 'ej qumvaD 'oSbogh jImatlh 'e' vI'Ip:

Shouldn't the [-vaD]'s be connected with a [je] at the end, instead of

> wa' wo''e' Devbogh Qun, wa' wo''e' luwavlaHbe'bogh,

> wa' wo''e' HochvaD tlhab ruv je lay'bogh.
> one empire which promises freedom and justice to all."

Some say that with -'e' the /wa' wo''e'/ can stay at the beginning (and
the other sentences).  But I don't think it works well here.  I believe it
would be better as the subject that it is.

HochvaD tlhab ruv je lay'bogh wa' wo''e'.

> Also, I wanted to say *{wavlu'laHbe'bogh} "which cannot
> be divided", but Okrand tells us explicitly that:
>    The two suffixes of Type 5 [i.e. {-lu'} and {-laH}] have nothing much
>    do with each other except for both being Type 5. As a result, no verb
>    occurs with both of these suffixes at the same time. (TKD p.38)
> Okrand tells us about the sometimes heard slang suffix {-luH} "one can"
> in KGT (p.181), but I decided not to use it in order to keep the style
> formal.

For "Kahless, the unforgettable" he used vay'.

DloraH, BG

Back to archive top level