tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 26 08:26:17 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 ( [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

ja' qa'vaj:

> Think of it this way:
> Message 1: I'm trying to understand how "I who am" works in English  
> blah
> blah blah.
> Response: "I who am" will likely never be used in any meaningful way.
> Reply: "I who am the message sender disagree"

The phrase "I who am the message sender" confuses me.  I suspect  
you're still unconsciously thinking of it as a nonessential relative,  
and that the meaning you're trying to get across would be properly  
given as

"I, who am the message sender, disagree."

Now *that* makes some sense, at least in English.  Parenthetically  
identifying yourself as the message sender is understandable.   
Without the commas, however, I still can't come up with a good reason  
to use an essential relative that way, and I still can't read it  
without wondering what I'm missing.

I hate to apply argument from authority, but since at least two  
obviously skilled Klingonists are having trouble with what you're  
trying to say, it seems pretty clear that the way you're trying to  
say it doesn't work.

>> 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.
> DIvI' Hol mu'tlheghvetlh vIghItlhDI' <<qech DaDelbogh vIQoch>> vIQub.

{vIQoch} is weird enough that I can't get past it without having to  
apply real concentration to the task of understanding what you mean.   
{Qoch} means "disagree", and what its object (if any) might be is  
unclear.  It looks like you're treating it as "disagree with", but  
that isn't how the word is defined.

-- ghunchu'wI'

Back to archive top level