[93499] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] mutually subordinate clauses?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Terrence Donnelly)
Mon Jun 4 11:09:41 2012
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Terrence Donnelly <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
To: tlhIngan-Hol <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
In-Reply-To: <F52986192E9FE346B0B7EF3D6F98E87711C2F6FE@EXDB3.ug.kth.se>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
--- On Mon, 6/4/12, Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se> wrote:
>"Terrence Donnelly" <terrence.donnelly@sbcglobal.net>
> > {mapawbe'chugh, wIHIvlu'pu' 'e'
> 'oS}
> > or, sort of pedantic
> > {wIHIvlu'pu' 'e' 'oS pawbe'taHghachmaj.}
>
> Not sure I see the logic of using 'oS, here. 'agh or tob
> might work, though.
> Also: {wIHIvlu'pu' net Sovbej mapawbe'chugh.}
I could not recall any other verbs off the top of my head. There may be better ones than {'oS}.
>
> However, my favorite remains {wIHIvlu'be'chugh mapawbej.}:
> It's short and succinct.
>
This just doesn't say the same thing. The original was saying "Take our non-arrival as a sign that we were attacked," i.e., "Here is how to interpret our non-arrival", maybe implying that we want to arrive so badly, that only an attack would stop us. This just says "If we aren't attacked, we will arrive," a simple statement of fact, like "If it doesn't rain, we'll have a picnic."
-- ter'eS
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
