tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jun 13 21:40:10 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: borg'ngan
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KLBC: borg'ngan
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:43:51 -0500
beHwI"av writes:
>I thought {-be'} was not and {-Qo'} was don't or won't, but I see the point
>about the {wI-}.
Look closer at the description in TKD 4.3. {-Qo'} is used instead of {-be'}
in imperatives and is given the short translation "don't!" as a command. It
is also used to indicate refusal, and is given the short translate "won't".
That's not the same thing as the english future tense "will not".
>>>tlhIngan yIjatlh'a'
>>
>>"[Do you] speak a Klingon!" An imperative prefix such as {yI-} and the
>>interrogative suffix {-'a'} don't make sense together.
>
>You mean it's a pleonasm. Mmm, I think it might be better if I said
>{tlhIngan Hol yIjatlh}
"Speak the Klingons' language!" Yes, much better.
>>>yIQummeH
>>
>>"[So that you] communicate!" Actually, I guess imperative prefixes and
>>*any* type 9 verb suffix are incompatible.
>
>I thought that said "So that you comunicate for us!"
There's nothing in it that indicates "for us" that I can see; that would
require {maHvaD} to be added at the beginning. I still can't figure out
how "so that" and "Do it!" go together.
It looks like you wanted to put these last two lines together as one
sentence: {bIQummeH tlhIngan Hol yIjatlh} "Speak Klingon so you can
communicate!", and the extra meaning of "for us" would turn it into
{maHvaD bIQummeH tlhIngan Hol yIjatlh}
>tlhIngan Hol vIghojqa'
reH tlhIngan Hol DaghojtaHjaj.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj