[86097] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: {'Iv} and {law'}/{puS}
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Trimboli)
Sun Jun 28 08:41:40 2009
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:40:17 -0400
From: David Trimboli <david@trimboli.name>
In-reply-to: <f60fe000906280327i413e8b82r91e686a529db0a2a@mail.gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
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."
--
SuStel
tlhIngan Hol MUSH
http://trimboli.name/mush
