tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 24 12:36:10 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>

Alan Anderson ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja' qa'vaj:

> However, in a case like "I who am the message sender disagree",  
> there is
> nothing any different (to me) than one might expect in translating "I
> disagree with the idea that you are describing."

The phrase "I who am the message sender" confuses me to begin with.   
There's no reason I can think of for a relative clause to be used  
with something as uniquely specific as "I".  I can only imagine  
someone saying it if they wanted to convey something in particular,  
but what that particular idea might be escapes me.  Especially here,  
where it seems doubly redundant to attempt to refer to yourself  
simultaneously as "I" and as "the message sender" while it is  
obviously you who is sending the message.

> In the latter, I can translate immediately into Klingon without  
> expecting any surprises.


If you think these two cases are similar, please do try translating  
the second phrase into Klingon.  I see at least one surprise waiting  
for you.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level