tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Nov 25 14:41:55 2009
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: The topic marker -'e'
- From: Tracy Canfield <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: The topic marker -'e'
- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:40:08 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tnzPmKwTu5tDOKfzlfRcnsz5QDMyvlsg21qG0BXcSho=; b=yHdRKCClCQMSoPAmNN8ZgCprz4FKZ8VK/RhGP0/eX9lUHuI3wbMz3adX3c+1EGgAMJ BAzXJANj0btUs28qrHkCvDz0w3+irM65KRWcg9Hcy4Ul/yWhGf6SV/a+AfaLujUYsgB4 6ErQ++sdHbqye4tsvz2gwohcIE19WEpshZH9s=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=r2pPtCGK/UqE9JxVB7q4K3Rk+VOlvpBCl8+9eSOcomQMpsrDYsskcNvcBYVOCbrY0L bmg/ex0bXK3y+G7iC+95bOTu8WRO/EhaForqmzGCvuGMa51UonuCryPWWsVEzZnctT9o tRP9tmha+RDE9SjgsYdi2bss4sQvHBl9IK0LI=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Did I say that? I thought I said "maHvaD".
2009/11/25 Christopher Doty <[email protected]>:
> Huh, yeah, I guess I could have said something different, but I kind
> of like what I said :p
>
> I don't get -vaD as being "for the benefit of," just "for, intended for"...
>
> I'd say
>
>> yIHvaD may' 'oH may' quvHa''e'
>
> Would be "As for a dishonorable battle, it is a battle for tribbles
> (as opposed to, say, warriors)" instead of
>
>> As for a dishonorable battle, it is a battle, for the benefit of tribbles.
>
> as you said. Am I still missing something here?
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 14:12, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Christopher Doty wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 13:34, David Trimboli <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Christopher Doty wrote:
>>>>> Huh... It's not a N-N construction, though; the <yIHHomvaD> and the
>>>>> <may'> aren't in a N-N phrase?
>>>> But that's how you've used it. The first noun modifies the meaning of
>>>> the second noun. What kind of {may'} "battle" is it? It's a *{yIHHomvaD
>>>> may'} "minor tribble battle." That's the use of the noun–noun
>>>> construction, but the first noun isn't allowed a Type 5 suffix.
>>>> Beneficiaries (and locatives, etc.) only modify verbs.
>>>>
>>>> Now, there *are* a couple of phrases on the Bird of Prey poster which do
>>>> this, and I'm not surprised, given that it started as a list of English
>>>> noun phrases to be translated. (I have no doubt that Okrand fell into
>>>> the same trap you did.)
>> >
>> > I still see them as separate, though... I'm not using one to modify
>> > the battle, I'm saying (or trying to) that the battle is to be given
>> > over to tribbles, not that a dishonorable battle is a tribble battle.
>>
>> Oh! Let's see...
>>
>> yIHvaD may' 'oH may' quvHa''e'
>> As for a dishonorable battle, it is a battle, for the benefit of
>> tribbles.
>>
>> This doesn't carry the sense of the battle being "given over to"
>> tribbles. It means that a dishonorable is a battle, for the benefit of
>> tribbles. The tribbles benefit from the dishonorable being a battle.
>>
>> My dictionary tells me that "give over" is an informal British phrase
>> meaning to stop doing something. I know the phrase, but it doesn't
>> spring immediately to my American English-thinking mind. It seems
>> idiomatic to me.
>>
>> Some other ways to say what I think you're trying to say:
>>
>> batlhHa' Suv yIH 'e' yIchaw'
>> Let tribbles fight a dishonorable battle.
>>
>> batlhHa' Suv yIH neH
>> Only tribbles fight dishonorably.
>>
>> --
>> SuStel
>> tlhIngan Hol MUSH
>> http://trimboli.name/mush
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>