tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 27 14:41:38 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Topic (was: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Topic (was: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:40:04 EST
In a message dated 2/27/2007 11:55:35 AM Central Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
> > qatoy'taH wa'ben 'e' vItagh
> >
> >This seems (to me) to mean exactly what we want it to mean. Are there
> >objections to it from a grammatical (or, for that matter, any other) point
> >of view?
>
> I like this, but the time-stamp should precede the verb:
>
> wa' ben qatoy'taH 'e' vItagh.
> "I began serving you (continuously) a year ago"
>
I disagree with your change (although the result may still have roughly the
same meaning). The time-stamp already precedes its verb, but the first clause
is separate and does not require a time-stamp.
Adding a period (full stop) makes it easier to see:
qatoy'taH. wa'ben 'e' vItagh.
lay'tel SIvten