tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Apr 15 13:55:47 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: lutHom
Fri, 14 Apr 1995 ghItlh DaQtIq:
> lutHomvam vIghItlhta'
> Qaghmey lItu' 'e' vIngIl
qaDlIj vIlaj. {{:-)
> Qapla'
> - DaQtIq
>
>
> qeylIS vavwI' je vInajDI' vIvem
I wouldn't use {naj} as a transitive verb. Also, since {vem} has no
object, you would use {jI-}. By emulating the example from the PK tape
{bInajtaHvIS qeylIS Daghomjaj}, I would say something like:
qeylIS vavwI' je vIghomDI' jInajtaHvIS jIvem.
> tugh pIghom jatlh qeylIS
> vavwI' betleH vIjejmoH
> DaHjaj betleHwIj 'oH
> wa'leS puqloDwI' betleH 'oH
>
> yol yotlhDaq jIghoS
{ghoS} is unusual in that it does not require {-Daq} (Sec. 3.3.5.) Thus,
you could also say: yol yotlh vIghoS.
> pe'vIl paw'chuq nuHmey 'e' vIQoy
> may'Daq jIqet 'ej cha' vajpu' vIHIv
> vIHoHpa' nIH ghopwIj murIQmoH
> jaghpuwI' 'Iw DuD 'IwwIj 'e' vIlargh
Perhaps you could say: DuD jaghpu'wI' 'Iw 'IwwIj je 'e' vIlargh.
> ratlh latlh ghop petaQpu' quvHa' vIjach
One of the things I've wanted to ask Okrand, is whether it is okay to
put {-Ha'} on a verb when it is used adjectivally. Although I think it
would be very useful and it would seem to make perfect sense, Sec. 4.4.
seems to indicate otherwise. The alternative would be to say
{quvHa'bogh petaQpu'} instead.
> pay' DubwIjDaq 'el 'etlh 'e' vIHot
> nom vItlhe' 'ej mongDaj mer betleHwIj
> yaywIj Qav
>
> 'oy''a'
> batlh jIHeghpu'
> qeylIS
> vavoy
> Salegh
majQa'! Dun lutHomlIj. vItIvqu'.
yoDtargh