tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Oct 28 16:35:45 2009

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: mech

qurgh lungqIj (qurgh@wizage.net)



On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:56 PM, ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
>  I wouldn't expect this use of English "for" to match the Klingon {-vaD}.
> Without specific official guidance, I'd probably consider the things
> being traded as a plural object and say it like this:
>
> DaqtaghlIj betleHwIj je DImech vIneH.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
I considered that, but it seemed to limit the use of mech in my mind. If the
situation included multiple objects with multiple owners it would quickly
become confusing:

meqleHlIj DaqtaghwIj betleHDaj je wImech
We traded his betleH, my Daqtagh and your meqleH.

Whose trading what? Maybe it just needs to be rephrased:

SoHvaD DaqtaghwIj betleHDaj je vImech 'ej jIHvaD meqleHlIj Damech.

qurgh






Back to archive top level