tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 27 14:41:38 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: Topic (was: Re: Dilbert Comic in Klingon for February 9, 2007

MorphemeAddict ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol taghwI']



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






Back to archive top level