tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 11 18:54:58 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIghtaHvIS jIghItlh
On Mon, 10 Apr 1995, Alan Anderson wrote:
> (written Monday, April 3)
I think your subject line got garbled.
<jIghIQtaHvIS jIghItlh> DaghItlh 'e' DaHech'a'?
> jIHvaD Dun Hoghvam 'e' vIpIH.
> *condominium*Daq be'nalwI' SoS vav je DItlhej qorDu'wI'.
> qaStaHvIS cha'maH loS rep *Daytona Beach*vaD *Indiana*vo' malenglI'.
For physical locations, you would use {-Daq} instead of {-vaD}.
> 'ach DaH naDev maHtaH 'ej poH law' vIghaj.
> *beach*Daq jIba'laH 'ej tlhIngan Hol vIghItlhlaH.
> tlhIngan Hol vIHaDvIS poH vIlo'Ha' 'e' Har be'nalwI'.
{-vIS} can't be used by itself. It always comes with {-taH}.
...vIHaDtaHvIS...
> HartaHghachDaj vItaHmoH 'e' vIpIH.
> *Indiana*vo' wImejta'DI' peDtah.
When you put {-vo'} on a noun, it no longer becomes the object of the verb.
{[Indiana]vo' mamejta'DI'} would be better, because technically, the verb
in this sentence has no direct object.
As a side note, I have seen some experts question whether it is correct to
simply say {peDtaH} for "it is snowing". Some believe that the "it"
should be explicitly stated. E.g. {peDtaH muD} or {peDtaH chal}. On the
other hand, I have seen canon examples of the implicit "it" in use:
{De' lI' Sovlu'DI' chaq Do'Ha'} (PK). Some may disagree with me, but I
think your use of {peDtaH} is probably okay.
> *Florida* naDev loQ tuj muD.
Perhaps {[Florida]Daq naDev loQ tuj muD} would sound a little better.
> wov pem Hov 'ej mubel bIQ'a'.
> ravDaq wa'maH wa' Such vaj maleghqu'laH.
jIyajchu'be'. Such 'Iv nuq joq? Such'a' pem Hov?
> -- ghunchu'wI'
lutlIj vIlaDDI' [Florida]Daq bIQ'a' retlhDaq jIghIQ vIneHqu'. <sigh>
yoDtargh