tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 26 13:38:21 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

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

Doq (doq@embarqmail.com)



Given the affinity to head-banging we've seen among Klingons, being  
called a bone-head might not be an insult.

Doq

On Dec 26, 2007, at 1:55 AM, qa'vaj wrote:

> --
> On Dec 24, 2007 2:34 PM, Alan Anderson <aranders@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Some co-workers get together.  One derisively reads a message out  
> loud,
> unaware that the message sender is in the group.  After reading the  
> message
> he says "whoever sent that message is a real bonehead".  The sender  
> could
> say: "I who am the message sender disagree."
>
>
>> Especially here,
>
>
> ??? I used it 'here' because it was self-referential to the thread  
> topic.
>
> 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"
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> -- 
> qa'vaj
> qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH
>
>
>






Back to archive top level