[83750] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: "to-be" + <<-bogh>>
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doq)
Wed Dec 26 16:38:52 2007
From: Doq <doq@embarqmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <f5b478ef0712252255w3d040c71i900ba352aca1941c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:37:30 -0500
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Given the affinity to head-banging we've seen among Klingons, being
called a bone-head might not be an insult.
Doq
On Dec 26, 2007, at 1:55 AM, qa'vaj wrote:
> --
> 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
>
>
>
