[83929] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: Using the verb DuH (was Art of War Chp. 1 (section 3/3))
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (qa'vaj)
Thu Jan 10 22:44:12 2008
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:38:02 -0600
From: qa'vaj <darqang99@gmail.com>
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
In-Reply-To: <BLU115-F1222A3ED8E00FC84DEC4F4F2490@phx.gbl>
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Jan 9, 2008 4:42 PM, Agnieszka Solska <agnpau1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> To the best of my knowledge, the problem remains unresolved. Still, the
> line
> is there and it is canon. I wouldn't go as far as to recommend similar
> constructions for general use. However, I was quite glad of the existence
> of
> {qIpmeH Qatlh'a'?} while translating The Tao Te Ching as it equipped me
> with
> yet another tool to express certain meanings. On quite a few occasions
> building sentences modeled on it allowed me to retain the rhythm and/or
> the
> rhyme which would otherwise be lost. I may still change the line in the
> Art
> of War which triggered this discussion but I can't promise never to use
> similar constructions again.
>
>
Thanks! Your post is an excellent exposition. I'll probably try to hunt
down the thread that was used in HolQeD 8:3. I see what you are doing now
and I think it is consistent with the canon that you cite.
--
qa'vaj
qo'lIj DachenmoHtaH
