[92611] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] New Canon - King John Shakespeare
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Qov)
Tue Mar 20 17:58:55 2012
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:58:35 -0700
To: "tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org" <tlhIngan-Hol@kli.org>
From: Qov <robyn@flyingstart.ca>
In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E87711C1BE0E@EXDB3.ug.kth.se>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
At 14:47 '?????' 3/20/2012, Felix Malmenbeck wrote:
>I find the use of {neH} in the first one a bit surprising: > loD
>naQmoHlaH be'vam rurbogh be' neH > ... > 'ach be'vam pupqu'moHlaH
>loDvam neH "The mere woman who is like this woman" "This mere man
>can make this woman truly perfect"
TKD 5.4 yIlaDqa'. Following a verb it has the trivializing effect you
describe. Following a noun it means "only, alone," and works here.
>The second one: > parmaq choH pagh teHqu' Interesting use of teH;
>appears to refer to something other than the truth value of a
>statement. A definite nothingness? Or perhaps it's two sentences
>with no punctuation between? "Nothing changes par'Mach. It's really true!"
I see {pagh teHqu'} as a similar to paghna'. Note the back
translation "very true[ly] nothing." So the subject of the sentence
is a "very true nothing."
> > Qombe'! nISbe' jevwI', 'ej not ruS baq. So, if this is canon, we
> now have jevwI' to refer to storms/tempest.
But note that it's in the context of the previous sentence which
establishes what, in this case is doing the jev-ing, and therefore
may not be obvious out of context.
- Qov
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
