SuStel:
> I think you meant two adjectival verbs, not two adverbs.
oh yes ! you're right.
SuStel:
> The problem in feeling is that in English "pure,
> negative energy" probably isn't what you
> mean. Do you actually mean "pure energy,
> negative energy," or do you mean "purely
> negative energy"? Is it the energy that is pure
> or the negativity?
It is the energy that is at the same time pure and negative. Both the "pure" and the "negative" refer to the energy, and are used to describe it.
The way I see it (correct me if I am wrong), is that the way I described is equivalent to saying:
{SuStel po', jupwI' QaQ, qatlho'}
expert SuStel, my good friend, thank you
the "thank you" refers to the one same person (and because if this reason we use the {qa-}), and the {SuStel}, {jupwI'}, {po'} and {QaQ} describe the same person too.
DloraH:
> Are you using ngIng/"negative charge" to
> imply evil, bad, the dark side
> of the force?
yes, that was the intention. and you're right; I should have used {mIgh} or {Hurgh} instead. But - may the canon master forgive me - I chose to use {ngIng} because I wanted to directly translate the word "negative".
qunnoH
ghoghwIj HablI'vo' vIngeHta'
> ... ngIng ...
> ... convey the exceptional dark "punch" of
> the english original.
ngIng - have a negative charge
A science type of term, given to us the same time we got "electron" and
"proton".
But then you talk about "dark".
Are you using ngIng/"negative charge" to imply evil, bad, the dark side
of the force?
- DloraH
_______________________________________________
tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org
http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org