tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 16 15:12:27 2003
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: 'aH tIQ
> So, first off, your intent truly was to say that it was rare for *mobs to
> think*, right? Therefore, DloraH's impression that /wanI'vetlh/ referred
> to the looting was incorrect... Correct?
Let's assume that is the case.
> QublaHchugh ghom'a' QeH, vaj qubbej wanI'vetlh
> "If angry mobs could think, then that event is certainly rare."
>
> Let's do away with the pronoun-like use of /wanI'vetlh/ and get redundant.
> If the /wanI'/ is a crowd thinking, you would end up with:
>
> QublaHchugh ghom'a' QeH, vaj qubbej QublaHbogh ghom'a' QeH
> "If angry mobs could think, then angry mobs that can think would certainly
> be rare."
Wrong. /wanI'vetlh/ doesn't refer to /QublaHbogh ghom'a' QeH/. If you want
a noun, it could refer to /ghom'a' QeH QubchoHlaHghach/ "an angry crowd's
beginning to be able to think."
(I used /-choH/ just to make it clear that we're talking about an action,
not a description. It is not vital.)
In this case, we'd have
QublaHchugh ghom'a' QeH, vaj qubbej ghom'a' QeH QubchoHlaHghach.
If an angry crowd can think, then an angry crowd's beginning to be able to
think is certainly rare.
The noun, the event, is "the being able to think," not "the crowd."
I still don't think that any of this is necessarily the best way to say it.
SuStel
Stardate 3290.3