tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Nov 16 12:45:07 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: TLHINGAN-HOL digest 296
>Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:15:21 -0800
>From: "Matt Treyvaud, P.A." <[email protected]>
>> I was whining about your [excessive, IMHO] use of {-ghach}. You've
>> added a "to be" to a nominalized verb, which is [again, IMHO] similar
>> to putting wheels on a rowboat that was built by removing the wheels
>> from a wagon. Where English often talks about things "being", I see
>> tlhIngan Hol focusing on action. I believe that trying to force the
>> verb "question" to act as a noun goes against the spirit of the verb
>> itself. Instead of "this is a question", I'd say "I question" -- or
>> better yet, "Answer me!"
>>
>> -- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>"Answer me!" - "(Dah) tujang!" - vIparHaqu'! :)
ghobe'. "tujang" is a statement of fact. It means "you answer me." I can
say "Oh, you mean I answered you? Oh, ok." and walk away.
If it's a COMMAND, you have to COMMAND us to do it. "Answer me!" "HIjang!"
That's why God... er, Okrand created the imperative prefixes. They're
there (hey, look, identical consecutive syllables) for a reason.
~mark