tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun May 12 04:22:42 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: help with "Floreat Majestas"
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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
>Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 1:09 PM
>To: [email protected]
>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