tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 15 14:21:06 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'aH tIQ
From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, David Trimboli wrote:
> > From: "...Paul" <[email protected]>
> > > I tend to kringe when I see "wanI'vetlh". :)
> >
> > I think we've seen several sentences from Okrand that have words like
> > {wanI'} and {ghu'} used in ways different than you'd comfortably use
them in
>
> I kringe because I've seen, many times, people use "wanI'vetlh" to hack
> around the English version of "is". I don't like using "that event" to
> refer to something else *in the same sentence*, especially if "that event"
> is the subject of a clause. /-vam/ and /-vetlh/ seem to be a sticky point
> that are either underused or overused. ;)
Oh, well if it's a problem with /-vam/ and /-vetlh/, that's different. You
could easily remove it here:
QublaHchugh ghom'a' qubbej wanI'
If a crowd is able to think, the event is certainly rare.
Mind you, I don't necessarily think this is the best way to express this,
but I don't have a problem with it. Depending on what was meant (I'm
starting to lose track!), I might use:
qubbej QublaHchu'bogh ghom'a'
A crowd which can think clearly is certainly rare.
> Thus, "QublaHchugh ghom'a', vaj qubbej wanI'vetlh" seems like a kludge --
> IFF /wanI'vetlh/ is referring to the /ghom'a'/. If it wasn't, then yes,
> my comment is unnecessary.
I don't think it was. /wanI'vetlh/ seems to be referring to the crowd being
able to think, not to the crowd itself.
SuStel
Stardate 3287.5