[Tlhingan-hol] nuq bop bom: 'ay' SochmaH loS: <qaS nuq?>

[Qov]

Interesting.

I think I may have come back and looked at that sentence at one point 
and pictured him with his arms folded high over his chest and his 
hands on his own shoulders,  in a doubled over in pain sort of way, 
so the plural ownership was to help out there. I leave possessives 
off body parts a lot because it doesn't often clarify and I'm 
influenced by languages where "he brushes himself the teeth" rather 
than brushing his teeth, so it's ironic that you suggest I put one on 
unnecessarily.

Every time someone relies to this part I think it's going to be a 
criticism of the brutal amount of pain I'm putting this Klingon 
through as they conduct appalling battlefield surgery and then haul 
him from place to place with seeping abdominal wounds, but as long as 
I get the grammar right it's all cool, So I guess in answer to my own 
footnote there's a little bit of guilt over the disembowelment, but 
nothing like the type-7 after 'e'.



At 14:47 08/11/2011, Agnieszka Solska wrote:


> >> volchaHDu'chaj 'uchtaHvIS meH ghoS 'ungya.
> >
> >Forgive my introspection here, but I thought this was interesting.
> >When I encountered this sentence, I was slightly thrown by the {-chaj}
> >with no antecedent at the beginning of a paragraph, and I slowed down
> >to read it carefully. I got more confused as I went along until I
> >reached the very last word, figured out what everything was supposed
> >to be, and read it again with full knowledge of what all the subjects
> >and objects were.
> >
> >I can't start over and read it for the first time, but I did review
> >the whole thing again just now without being interrupted between
> >paragraphs, and the {-chaj} reference was obvious. Interestingly,
> >reading the full sentence "at speed" doesn't give me the same vague
> >sense of frustration I get when reading it a word at a time. Even now,
> >knowing exactly what it says, if I read it slowly I feel like I'm
> >being made to wait longer than I should for the necessary information.
> >To accommodate less rapid readers, I would suggest putting {'ungya}
> >before the {meH ghoS} clause.
>
>Is {-chaj} really necessary here? Can't we simply say:
>{volchaHDu' 'uchtaHvIS meH ghoS 'ungya}? Isn't it
>obvious whose {volchaHDu'} 'ungya is holding?
>
>'ISqu'
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tlhingan-hol mailing list
>Tlhingan-hol at stodi.digitalkingdom.org
>http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol