tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 05 22:13:08 2008
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
DawI' - ghetwI'
- From: Doq <[email protected]>
- Subject: DawI' - ghetwI'
- Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 01:09:27 -0500
- Authentication-results: smtp07.embarq.synacor.com [email protected]; spf=neutral
- Authentication-results: smtp07.embarq.synacor.com [email protected]; auth=pass (LOGIN)
- X_cmae_category: 0,0 Undefined,Undefined
I've seen people use the term {DawI'} for "actor". Comparing it now to
{ghetwI'}, it seems like the latter would be a better term. {DawI'}
might work better as "impersonator", or "wanna-be". For one thing,
{ghet} doesn't seem to need a direct object quite as much as {Da}, and
when {ghet} takes one, I'd expect it to be {'e'} more often than not.
{Da} would need a person or job or group identifiable by their
behavior as direct object.
{ghet} might even give us an irrealis.
"If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their tails every time they
jumped."
telDu' ghaj frogmey net ghetchugh, vaj SupDI' frogmey, yav
lungeQnISbe' tlhuQmeychaj.
Doq