[tlhIngan Hol] A {tu'lu'} out of nowhere

[mayqel qunenoS]

De'vID:
> The English sentence says:
> "(2 Full Decks) and (a Half Utility Deck under the Cargo
> Deck)"
> You're misreading it as:
> "(2 Full Decks and a Half Utility Deck) under the Cargo Deck"

Oh, I see.. So that was the problem. Finally I understand. Thanks.

qunnoq

On 5 Jul 2017 5:37 pm, "De'vID" <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5 July 2017 at 12:25, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:
> > jIH:
> >> {cha' choQmey naQ tep choQ je bIngDaq}
> >> at the area below two full decks and the cargo deck.
>
> > De'vID:
> >> That doesn't work either, because only the half utility deck is under
> >> the cargo deck. Again, what is the grammatical role of {bIngDaq} here?
> >
> > If we leave aside the intended meaning of the bird of prey poster,
> > would you accept as grammatically correct the {cha' choQmey naQ tep
> > choQ je bIngDaq} for "at the area below of two full decks and a cargo
> > deck" ?
>
> Yes.
>
> > jIH:
> >> The only way I can make sense of the klingon sentence is as it is
> >> describing the bop, and saying "there are two full decks (and then)
> >> under the cargo deck (there is) a half utility deck.
> > De'vID:
> >> And just what is wrong with this?
> >
> > Perhaps my problem has to do with the way I understand the english
> > translation. Let me put it another way.
> >
> > The way I understand the english translation, it means that "there is
> > the cargo deck and then there are 2 full decks and a half utility
> > deck" (cargo deck --> two full decks & half utility deck)
> >
> > The way I understand the klingon sentence, it means that "there are
> > two full decks, then the cargo deck and then the half utility deck"
> > (two full decks --> cargo deck --> half utility deck)
>
> The English sentence says:
> "(2 Full Decks) and (a Half Utility Deck under the Cargo Deck)"
>
> You're misreading it as:
> "(2 Full Decks and a Half Utility Deck) under the Cargo Deck"
>
> Presumably, the actual poster makes clear what the relationship is
> between the cargo deck and the full decks, but context and logic
> should tell you that your interpretation of the English doesn't make
> sense: it can't be the case that there are 2 full decks under the
> cargo deck, because then the cargo deck would itself have to be a full
> deck (and thus you'd have to say that there are 3 full decks, one of
> which is the cargo deck, and the other 2 are under it).
>
> The Klingon sentence is clear, here.
>
> --
> De'vID
> _______________________________________________
> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170705/c4f1e748/attachment.htm>