tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 28 12:33:58 2007

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: TUNGUSKA mupmeH Daq tu'lu''a'?

Steven Boozer ([email protected])



>Voragh:
> > TUNGUSKA mupmeH Daq tu'lu''a'?
> > Tunguska impact crater found?

ghunchu'wI':
>qatlh <-meH> Dalo'?  meq ghoQ joq ghaj'a' chunDab?

ghobe', ghajbe'ba' chunDab.

> > I suppose I could go with a relative clause:
> >
> >    Daq'e' muppu'bogh chunDab
> >    the site that the meteor struck/impacted>
> >
> >    Daq muppu'bogh chunDab'e'
> >    the meteor that struck/impacted the site
> >
> > Of these, I still prefer my first attempt:  {mupmeH Daq} "impact 
> site".  Or
> > should this be {muplu'meH Daq}?  (Using {-meH} and {-lu'} always 
> confuses me!)

I coined *{mupmeH Daq} "impact site" on the model of {chenmoHlu'meH Daq} 
"construction site" (KBoP) - "site for the purpose of something being 
constructed (by someone)".  But you're right:  it's not the same thing as 
there's no actor.  I was a bit leery, but I had previously coined *{laQmeH 
Daq} "launch site", *{SaqmeH Daq} "landing site} and *{SaqHa'meH Daq} 
"crash site " for my notes, so I may have been led astray.

> > Suggestions for "crater"?
>
>   chunDab QIH
>   chalmupwI' gho
>
>'ach naDev Qaplaw' <ngeng taQ>. :-P




--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons






Back to archive top level