tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 05 12:20:18 2005

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: More on Ray Charles

bob mcfaddin ([email protected])



Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


QeS lagh <[email protected]> wrote:
ja' juDmoS:
>matay' 'e' Hoch ram vInajtaH 'e' DaSovbe'
>"You don't know that I dream each night that we are together."
>Well? whattaya think? Does that work?

. *{'e' Hoch ram vInajtaH} is ungrammatical; {'e' Hoch ram vInaj} is 
the correct way of saying this.

jang ghunchu'wI':
>DoS puSlaH 'e' wISovbe'. chaq bIv . chaq pab. maSovbe'.
>{naj} is defined for us as "dream", not "dream about". I will understand
>what is intended when someone uses it with an object, but absent canon
>support I will not do it myself.

Well put. We don't know that {naj} can sensibly take an object - although 
that said, I think {matay' 'e' vInaj} is more likely to be grammatical than 
{qanaj}, since we've used other verbs in that way. {chup} and {Har} spring 
to mind.

Okay, a minor recast, then.. vInajtaHvIS Hoch ram matay' 'e' Dasovbe' .

"You don't know that we are together each night in my dreams (when I'm dreaming)."

It sounds more ... I don't know, ponderous that way, but it's more grammatically correct, Klingon-wise, yes? (naj) no longer has an object... and whether "you don't know that I dream about us being together" or "you don't know that we are together when I dream", the essential point is still conveyed.

Better? Worse? Comments?



jajvam lururbogh jajmey'e' lutu'lu' muja'ta' SoSoywI'

juDmoS
		
---------------------------------
Discover Yahoo!
 Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!





Back to archive top level