tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jun 28 05:41:21 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: {'Iv} and {law'}/{puS}

David Trimboli ( [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

Mark J. Reed wrote:
> DT>  'Iv Dogh law' latlh Dogh puS: qoH, tlha'bogh qoH ghap?
> Pithy and retains the sense of the original. maj.
> I also like Doq's idea of asking which is the {qoHna'} instead of
> making a {law'}/{puS} with {Dogh}.  I mean, it completely sidesteps
> the "who is more X" problem that was the whole point of my post :),
> but probably for that reason it works very well as a translation.
> Plus, it keeps the visible connection (as between "fool" and
> "foolish") that is missing between {qoH} and {Dogh}.

I considered and rejected {qoHna'}. Both {qoHpu'} are {qoHna'}, but the 
question is asking which is *more* of a {qoH}.

We desperately need an adverbial meaning "more."

tlhIngan Hol MUSH

Back to archive top level