On 5 July 2017 at 12:25, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@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