[83734] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Anderson)
Mon Dec 24 15:36:40 2007
In-Reply-To: <f5b478ef0712232145q2ba27b97scb7e017635e31b1c@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alan Anderson <aranders@insightbb.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:34:29 -0500
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
ja' qa'vaj:
> However, in a case like "I who am the message sender disagree",
> there is
> nothing any different (to me) than one might expect in translating "I
> disagree with the idea that you are describing."
The phrase "I who am the message sender" confuses me to begin with.
There's no reason I can think of for a relative clause to be used
with something as uniquely specific as "I". I can only imagine
someone saying it if they wanted to convey something in particular,
but what that particular idea might be escapes me. Especially here,
where it seems doubly redundant to attempt to refer to yourself
simultaneously as "I" and as "the message sender" while it is
obviously you who is sending the message.
> In the latter, I can translate immediately into Klingon without
> expecting any surprises.
If you think these two cases are similar, please do try translating
the second phrase into Klingon. I see at least one surprise waiting
for you.
-- ghunchu'wI'
