[524] in tlhIngan-Hol
Boots, continued
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Thu Apr 8 13:48:06 1993
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Errors-To: tlhIngan-Hol-request@village.boston.ma.us
Reply-To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
From: (Mark E. Shoulson) <shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu>
To: "Klingon Language List" <tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us>
Cc: tlhIngan-Hol@village.boston.ma.us
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 93 10:29:55 -0400
In-Reply-To: mark's message of Mon, 05 Apr 93 08:59:54 EST <9304050859.A05137@d
>Date: Mon, 05 Apr 93 08:59:54 EST
>From: mark <mark@dragonsys.COM>
>> Now right is right, but you ain't been right yet.
>> lugh lughwI', 'ach not bIlughpu' SoH.
>> Note "lughwI'" for "thing that is right."
>Or it could be read -- I *did* read it -- as "someone who is
>right", and that works fine. "not" is nice; "wej" would carry
>the "not yet" meaning literally, but I think it would also imply
>that maybe "you" will be right sometime... which would clash with
>the feeling of the original.
Actually, I completely forgot about "wej" altogether, and probably would
have used it had I thought of it. But since you like "not" better, and
your point is pretty valid, let it stand as is. I suppose I could have
said "lugh lughghach", but "lughwI'" sounds nicer.
~mark
