tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 11 20:14:07 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: taH (was Re: mu' lo' QaQ 'oSbogh mu'tlheghmey)

De'vID jonwI' ([email protected]) 

QeS lagh:
>{DuHIv SuvwI' lol} is not the same as {DuHIvmeH SuvwI' lol ghaH}. The first 
>implies that an attack is actually taking place, where the second does not.
>
>Just in passing, the placement of {SuvwI'} in this sentence is a little odd 
>to me (although I'm probably influenced by English in that perception): I 
>would have said {DuHIvmeH lol SuvwI'}. It's shorter, plus in {DuHIvmeH 
>SuvwI' lol ghaH} the warrior doesn't have to be the one in the stance.

lolbe'chugh SuvwI' lol 'Iv?  Without any other context, who
but the warrior could be the one in the stance?  I don't see
how <DuHIvmeH lol SuvwI'> is any less ambiguous than
<DuHIvmeH SuvwI' lol ghaH>.  You're going from "In order
for the warrior to attack you, he is in a stance" to "In
order that he attacks you, the warrior is in a stance."
Your suggestion is shorter, but the same effect can be
obtained by <DuHIvmeH SuvwI', lol>.  I wonder if MO stuck
the <ghaH> in there so it wouldn't look like the <lol> was
acting adjectivally on <SuvwI'>?

--
De'vID

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

Back to archive top level