tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 07 12:34:16 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: bIQaghbejlI' *yoDtargh*
On Tue, 7 Feb 1995, Steve Weaver wrote:
> charghwI' says ("love my good-n-plenty...." sorry, I'm in one of THOSE
> moods again. ;-) ):
>
> >According to Steve Weaver:
> >>
> >> *yoDtargh* said:
> >> > vaHvo' nISwI'HIch lel *yoDtargh* 'ej Steve nach lurghDaq nuH Qeq.
> >> > DaH HolQeDvaD Spoonerism yIchenmoH ra' *yoDtargh*.
> >>
> >>
> >> qayajchu'
> >> bIQaghbejlI' *yoDtargh*
> >> DoS chImlaw' boQeq
> >
> >yoDtargh has become plural?
> >
> >> HolQeDvaD *spoonerism* vIbuSqu'taH
> >> vInIDbej
> >
>
> But I thought that the "bIQaghbejlI' *yoDtargh*" {*yoDtargh*, You are
> certainly in the progress of making a mistake. You are aiming at an empty
> target.} was singular. How is this plural ? I thought {bI-} was "You (no
> object)" ?
*yoDtargh* maH, malaw'mo'. {{;-)
> And I thought I had finally constructed a perfeckt Klingon response too ...
> *sniff* *sniff* :.-(
>
> Oh, well back to the drawing board. Will someone correct my grammer please?
> (or my gramper). Thanks
The second line is okay. It's the third line where you messed up.
1. If you use {chIm} as an adjective, then you can't add {-law'}; the only
suffixes you can add to it are {-qu'} and {-be'}. You can easily get around
that by using a {-bogh} construction:
{chImlaw'bogh DoS} (a target which is apparently empty)
2. The verb prefix {bo-} indicates a plural subject.
3. Since you want to aim AT the target, and not aim the target itself,
you'll need to add {-Daq} or {-vaD}. Since the sentence doesn't have a
direct object, you would use the verb prefix {bI-}.
chImlaw'bogh DoSDaq bIQeq.
> vIta'pu'be' !!! <- tlhIngan ghaH *Bart Simpson*'e'
> Steve Weaver [email protected]
yoDtargh