tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 15 14:37:09 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'aH tIQ
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, David Trimboli wrote:
> QublaHchugh ghom'a' qubbej wanI'
> If a crowd is able to think, the event is certainly rare.
>
> 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.
This is what I'd suggested (aside from your addition of -chu').
> > 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.
But see, they're the same thing in this case. Otherwise, you do have a
serious issue with sentence fragments. We have to identify what
/wanI'vetlh/ *is*. Is it the event of an angry mob thinking or being able
to think? If so, why use /-chugh/? The event is not "if a mob can
think". In that case, it would be "QublaH ghom'a'. vaj qubbej
wanI'vetlh" "Mobs can think. Then that event is rare."
I think DloraH's correct, thought, the intent was to refer to the previous
sentiment, of looting and public disorder. "If angry mobs could think,
those events (the looting and rioting) would be rare."
...Paul
** Have a question that reality just can't answer? **
** Visit Project Galactic Guide http://www.galactic-guide.com/ **
"I love it when a plan comes together."