RE: help with "Floreat Majestas"

["Peter Louvel" <peter@louvel.net>]

Ok, that makes sense now.
trying to wrap my mind around the concepts.


Concepts around    my mind   trying to wrap
Ideas    surround  my mind   trying [to] grasp

qechmey  Dech      yabwIj    nIDtaH  'uch

I don't know what to do with the [to] is it implied?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: mreed@thereeds.dyndns.org [mailto:mreed@thereeds.dyndns.org] On
>Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
>Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 1:09 PM
>To: tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org
>Subject: Re: help with "Floreat Majestas"
>
>On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 08:56:54AM +1000, Peter Louvel wrote:
>>  }So QaghHommey  -->  less mistakes ?
>No, the -mey doesn't change the meaning or make the -Hom somehow modify
>the quantity instead of the noun itself.  It just makes the whole thing
>plural, like adding a -s does in English.
>
>We don't really have a separate word in English for the idea
represented
>by "QaghHom".  QaghHom is to Qagh (error) as Qagh is to Qagh'a'
>(major error, blunder).  I remdered it as "mistakelet" but that's not
>a real word; "minor error" will probably have to do.  So "QaghHommey
>is just "minor errors".
>
>Krankor's full question was this::
>
>	marqoS, bIpabHa'DI', QaghHommey vI'ang DaneH'a'?
>
>which breaks down something like this:
>
>	marqoS, when-you-mis-follow, minor-mistakes I-show-them
you-want-it?
>
>And translates like this:
>
>marqoS, when you err, do you want me to point out the minor mistakes?
>
>Incidentally, the minor mistake in question - at least the closest one
>to Krankor's query - was using wI- to mean "we (do something to) them".
>For most subjects, the verb prefix for doing something to "them"
>is the same as the prefix for doing something to "him" or "her" or
"it",
>but one of the exceptions is when the subject is "we".
>The prefix "wI-" is only usable with a singular object; if the object
>is plural, the prefix has to be "DI-".
>
>-marqoS