[2844] in tlhIngan-Hol
batlh quvtaHghach je (part1)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Fri Jan 28 09:55:59 1994
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
From: shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu (Mark E. Shoulson)
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@klingon.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 09:52:07 -0500
In-Reply-To: Nick NICHOLAS's message of Fri, 28 Jan 94 10:26:17 EDT <1994012723
26.29552@krang.vis.mu.OZ.AU>
Nick on David Barron:
>= <<'u' leghlaHbe'lu'bogh vISeH 'ej bItaHvIpbe'chugh QaHwIj Dalo'bejlaH
>= 'ach DaH leS bel je qanob>> =
>="I control the unseen world and you can use my help. If you are not affraid.
>= But first I'll give you rest and pleasure."
>
>Both -laH and -lu' are type 5 suffixes, so they can't coocur. I'd say
>'u''e' leghlaHbogh pagh. Afraid here means afraid to use it, or afraid to
>battle, not afraid to exist; bIHajbe'chugh would fix that anyway, though
>I suppose given enough argumentation taH could be made to make sense.
How about just "'u' leghbe'lu'bogh"? I think we have a little too much
usage of "-laH"; it's not as necessary in many constructions as English
translations might imply ("Can you speak Klingon?" is probably neater
translated as "tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh'a'?")
~mark
