[86715] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: mech
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (qurgh lungqIj)
Wed Oct 28 19:36:13 2009
In-Reply-To: <355A0111-0E8D-413C-875B-6F32DF2021B3@alcaco.net>
From: qurgh lungqIj <qurgh@wizage.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:34:05 -0400
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:56 PM, ghunchu'wI' <qunchuy@alcaco.net> wrote:
> I wouldn't expect this use of English "for" to match the Klingon {-vaD}.
> Without specific official guidance, I'd probably consider the things
> being traded as a plural object and say it like this:
>
> DaqtaghlIj betleHwIj je DImech vIneH.
>
> -- ghunchu'wI'
>
>
I considered that, but it seemed to limit the use of mech in my mind. If the
situation included multiple objects with multiple owners it would quickly
become confusing:
meqleHlIj DaqtaghwIj betleHDaj je wImech
We traded his betleH, my Daqtagh and your meqleH.
Whose trading what? Maybe it just needs to be rephrased:
SoHvaD DaqtaghwIj betleHDaj je vImech 'ej jIHvaD meqleHlIj Damech.
qurgh
