tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Oct 27 07:33:41 2003

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Tao Te Ching Chp. 81

Lawrence Schoen ([email protected])

• From: "Lawrence Schoen" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Tao Te Ching Chp. 81
• Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 05:35:22 -0800

ghItlh 'ISqu':

>pagh vI' yajchu'wI'.
>latlhpu'vaD vangqu' 'ej law'taH vay' ghajbogh.
>latlhpu'vaD nobqu' 'ej law'taH vay' Hevbogh.


This is doubtless a problem on my end, and not on yours, but the phrase {law'taH vay' X-bogh} looks mangled to me. I keep wanting to cast it as {vay' law'taH X-bogh}. 

As for putting an explicit plural suffix on {vay'}, I don't see any need for it. Such suffixes are always optional anyway, and in this instance it would seem redundant (which isn't necessarily a bad thing in language) and certainly unnecessary.

Lawrence

• Prev by Date: Re: Benjamin Franklin
• Next by Date: Re: Klingon WOTD: qeylIS mInDu' (n)
• Prev by thread: Re: Tao Te Ching Chp. 81
• Next by thread: Re: Tao Te Ching Chp. 81
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level