tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 28 21:47:08 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Now and then?
- From: "Qang qu'wI'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Now and then?
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:45:51 -0600
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=8QEfePRjJH+fNPsmqsZsPiEPTd1aj4ozw6DUmlWe4Q8=; b=M1Vj6WQ8ywkSFN9PM5o+ByIjjkDqtZ6Hx7D3dXUoRnTc4DQ06jk0IWDIEbdJNUzxWk3RAIqYPWVhfFsF3v4gjQXp0oPh+vEdb38WGugCHfMJW6KXXYc6veq0xIFR8xfRdkTT+9RN24HuH8yOFhvEFKTs7ZLdHRW/V3x8pYY42Is=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=dcXX9AM56Uh3BLtdf9FHR9VbGxBNBepy9fY9zlo8XNbLZg7J3uDJsYh2gGQHFaATuR7zT2zuVt3ACBJ+Lka++JbMQGLzW0ScaU4QR27UdgyPN+1/bYjXUqYOnFu1QW/5djPggQiPZ2i1o2Uf0qhVF1QNhdTj0MWwh6+S8lkm6YM=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
On Nov 28, 2007 11:13 AM, Steven Boozer <[email protected]> wrote:
> This morning I passed a sign outside a Unitarian church advertising the
> next sermon: "Voyages: now and then". (Unfortunately I can't tell you
> what kind of voyages they're actually talking about.) Like a lot of us, I
> tried translating this into Klingon and immediately saw the
> problem: Whenever two adverbials occur in a clause they usually just
> follow each other at the beginning, but "now" and "then" more or less
> contradict each other. What conjugation, if any, can I use here?
>
[...]
>
> No conjugation. Rephrase repeating a verb phrase:
>
> DaH maleng, ngugh maleng
>
>
chaq:
maleng: malengtaH 'ej malengpu'
The verb approach loses (or at least doesn't necessarily convey) the plural
sense that I have in the original as: "Voyages in the present, voyages in
the past".
Obviously, this doesn't do anything with regards to your adverbial /
conjugation question.
I'll add that I, too saw {ghunchu'wI'}'s interpretation when I first read
your post and thought the sign to be ambiguous between the two possible
meanings.
--
Qang qu'wI'