[89234] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: nuq bop bom: 'ay' chorgh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh)
Mon Aug 29 23:02:20 2011
From: Rohan Fenwick - QeS 'utlh <qeslagh@hotmail.com>
To: <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:56:21 +1000
Errors-to: tlhingan-hol-bounce@kli.org
Reply-to: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
ghItlhpu' Qov, jatlh:
>"DIch Daghaj'a'?" jatlh DeghwI'.
I've noticed this turn of phrase elsewhere in the story but wasn't
going to say anything. I don't have a problem with it as such, but
I just wonder, do you prefer this phrasing to, say, {DaSovbej'a'}?
>cha' HanDogh ghajbogh Duj ra'bogh loD'e' Da.
I like the way you phrase this.
>"'IHqu''a' tu'lummeyvetlh?" tlhob, poH natlhmeH, QubtaHvIS.[4]
In fairness I don't think I'd even have noticed this if you hadn't
pointed it out. I don't find any issue at all with having a {-meH}
clause modifying any kind of subordinate clause rather than a main
clause:
jaghla' wIloSQo', poH natlhmeH QubchoHchugh
"we will not wait for the enemy commander if he starts thinking in
order to waste time"
jaghla' wIHoH, poH natlhmeH QubtaHvIS
"we will kill the enemy commander while he wastes time thinking"
jaghla' wIQaw', poH natlhmeH QubchoHDI'
"we will destroy the enemy commander as soon as he starts thinking
in order to waste time"
lut vItIvtaH! I'm intrigued to find out what the go is with the
apparent disfigurement of this alien captain. Odd indeed.
QeS 'utlh
