tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Mar 03 17:06:31 2004
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: <<roD Huch Hutlh cha'maH ben ghojwI' je>>
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: <<roD Huch Hutlh cha'maH ben ghojwI' je>>
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:05:44 -0500
ghItlhpu' QeS lagh:
>(BTW: <<DaH vIyaj>> bIjatlh DaneHbe' 'e' vIHar.
>I don't think you meant to say "Now understand this!" :P)
'ej jang'egh; ghItlh:
>Hoch QaghwIjvaD qa'meH vIttlhegh vIlo'chugh, qa'meH vIttlhegh neH >vIjatlh, qar'a'?? :D
jIHaghchu'!!!
[mu'mey 'utHa' vIQaw']
>I'll point out something here that I myself have done often in the past: >the suffixes <<-Daq>> and <<-vo'>> are entirely spatial in meaning (in >your sentence <<tlhIngan Holvo' DIvI' HolDaq DamughDI'>>). It's >therefore impossible to say something like *<<cha' jarDaq>> to mean "in >two years". It's an easy mistake to make, and I still do it fairly >often. (However, it is possible to say {mu'tlheghvamDaq} "in this >sentence" and {jabbI'IDwIjDaq} "in my message". I think this is because, >when written, the suffixes *do* have spatial reference. This can get a >bit confusing, too.)
>
>I'd suggest something like <<tlhIngan Hol mughmeH DIvI' Hol >Dalo'DI'>> "when you use English to translate Klingon" instead.
Heh. Good advice. Every time I think I've wrapped my mind 'round this language, some part of it surfaces to bite me in the ass. Do'Ha' 'ach charghlaHbe'bogh vay' Doch 'oHbe'.
-quljIb