tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Feb 13 17:55:23 1996

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: KLBC:qatlh jIH

First: the subject of this note is obviously supposed to mean
"why me?"  I won't complain too strongly about non-grammatical
subject lines, but I will point out that {qatlh jIH} is more
like "why am I?" than it is "why me?"

ghItlh nuqHm:
>chu'be'lu' De'wI'wIj

The verb suffix {-lu'} means the subject is unspecified, but you've
put something specific in the subject spot of the sentence.  Remember
the proper structure of a Klingon sentence:  OBJECT-VERB-SUBJECT.
In "something doesn't activate my computer," "my computer" is the
object and must come before the verb.

Do you mean merely that your computer is not activated, or do you
want to say that it is mis-activated or de-activated?  The suffix
{-be'} indicates a simple lack of a quality or action, but {-Ha'}
either reverses the meaning of the verb or implies that the action
was done wrongly.

>jIDo'be'choHqu' , De'wI''utlh vIHoHqangqu'

If you mean "unlucky" or "unfortunate", TKD tells us it's {Do'Ha'}
(see the second example on page 1).  I'm not sure, but your use of
{-qu'} looks like you might not quite understand its roving nature.
It emphasizes the suffix it is attached to; {jIDo'be'choHqu'} says
"I have *really changed* to be not lucky."  Maybe that's what you
meant, but it's an unusual thing to say.

>yuch HIje'

[*sigh* The "verb-prefix-indicates-indirect-object-instead-of-object"
construction is spreading, and there's nothing I can do about it.  As
an "official" speaker of the language, I must follow the rules as they
are given.  It's legal, of course, but it just feels so wrong.]

>nuqHm , ghojlI'wI'

{-lI'} Dalo'mo' bIjaqqu'law'.  reH ghojnISlu'taH 'e' vIHar.

-- ghunchu'wI'               batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj

Back to archive top level