[93859] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] A New Hope
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ghunchu'wI' 'utlh)
Sun Jun 24 20:08:48 2012
In-Reply-To: <CAMZYS2VRf89f5oMKhACwwnJrwQ6=cmNN5WdJS096A56XskUTog@mail.gmail.com>
From: "ghunchu'wI' 'utlh" <qunchuy@alcaco.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:08:12 -0400
To: Klingon language email discussion forum <tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
[ http://vulqangan.tripod.com/html/kl-sw1.html ]
I think most of it is very good. I have one largish gripe, one medium
one, and one small one:
> ret nI', qIb Hopqu'Daq...
{ret nI'} sounds very wrong to me, though I understand how it could be
argued to be correct. I'd prefer {poH nI' ret} or even {bov nI' ret},
though those too seem to abuse {ret} slightly.
> wo' nuH'a' De' pegh nIH lotlhwI' ghoqwI'pu'.
Given the timing of events and the use of "managed to steal" in the
English version, I think {nIHta'} is preferable to a simple {nIH}.
> Hegh Hov 'oH nuH'a' pong.
{Hegh} starts out in my mind as a verb with {Hov} as its subject, and
then I have to backtrack and reinterpret it properly. That's just an
observation, not really a complaint. The true problem is the lack of
{-'e'} on {pong}.
-- ghunchu'wI'
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
