[83740] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (qa'vaj)
Wed Dec 26 02:01:03 2007
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 00:55:52 -0600
From: qa'vaj <darqang99@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <B5E67CFF-3AF1-4E74-ACBE-32CB9D4817A1@insightbb.com>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
--
On Dec 24, 2007 2:34 PM, Alan Anderson <aranders@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Some co-workers get together. One derisively reads a message out loud,
unaware that the message sender is in the group. After reading the message
he says "whoever sent that message is a real bonehead". The sender could
say: "I who am the message sender disagree."
> Especially here,
??? I used it 'here' because it was self-referential to the thread topic.
Think of it this way:
Message 1: I'm trying to understand how "I who am" works in English blah
blah blah.
Response: "I who am" will likely never be used in any meaningful way.
Reply: "I who am the message sender disagree"
>
> 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.
>
>
DIvI' Hol mu'tlheghvetlh vIghItlhDI' <<qech DaDelbogh vIQoch>> vIQub.
--
qa'vaj
qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH
