tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 24 04:39:04 2005
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Qe'Daq maghoS/Qe' wIghoS (HQ3.3) final conclusion?
Jump forward to HolQeD Dec 98, interview with Marc Okrand.
Marc himself explains how it is.
DloraH
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of christoph.pichlmann
> Sent: Friday, 24 June, 2005 04:55
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Qe'Daq maghoS/Qe' wIghoS (HQ3.3) final conclusion?
>
> I've been reading HolQeD Vol 3, number 3 today, and now I'm wondering
> if the issue of "ghoS"(object?) did get any final conclusion(i.e. word
> from Okrand).
>
> In this issues "From the Grammarian's Desk", Captain Krankor concluded
> that both "Qe'Daq maghoS" and "Qe' wIghoS" are valid.
>
> I'd now like to know if they both are supposed to mean the same, or if
> there actually is a difference.
>
> I'd read "Qe'Daq maghoS" as "We're going to the (place where)
> restaurant (is)", with a (possible) meaning(undertone?) of "We don't
> know if the restaurant is still there, but we're going to the place
> where it should be".
> While "Qe' wIghoS" would mean "We're going to the restaurant", meaning
> "No matter where it's actual location is, we're going there.".
>
> (Note: It's quite likely someone else has said that before - I can't
> search the (mailing list) archive to check it. Might be I read that
> idea sometime and now merely remember it.)
>
> Christoph
>
>
>
>
![[KLI Member]](/pics/KLImemberbutton.gif "[KLI Member]"){kind=small}
![[Hol po'wI']](/pics/level3_big.png "[Hol po'wI']"){kind=small}