tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 27 20:00:24 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: be'pu'
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: be'pu'
- Date: Sun, 27 Apr 97 15:35:10 UT
[email protected] on behalf of William H. Martin wrote:
> > Qatlh ghu'. mapImmo' matIvchuq 'ach mapImmo' maQumHa'.
>
> 'e' vIHar vIneHpu'
Hey, that's an aspect suffix on the second (well, third) verb of a sentence as
object! Not allowed!
> 'ach vIHarlaHtaHbe'. bangwI' wa'DIch jatlh
Wrong order: {jatlh bangwI' wa'DIch}
> <<juHwIjDaq HIthej. juHmaj moj juHwIj. 'ach wejleS muSuch latlh
> 'ej bIlojnIS. latlhDaq yIratlh.>> QumHa'be' be'vam. Qumchu'
> be'vam. Qumchu'taHvIS mu'oy'qa'taH be'vam.
{mu'oy'qa'taH be'vam} "this woman continuously resumes hurting me." One often
forgets that {-qa'}'s primary function is to refer to a change of state back
to something that once was true. If you simply say {mu'oy'qa'}, it means "she
resumes hurting me." This action, which had been happening and then was
stopped, has now started again.
> [housemate=juHjup]
How about {juHqoch}?
> banwI' cha'DIch Qumchu' je. <<juHjupma' vIngach vIneH.>> mu'ja'.
Wrong order again, and slightly misspelled.
Qumchu' je bangwI' cha'DIch.
> <<chaq be'nalqoqDaj botlhobnIS.>>
>
> vaj be'nalqoqDaj tlhob juHjupma'. jang <<ghobe' jay'!>>
>
> 'ach So'taHvIS batlhHa' ngachchuq bangwI' juHjupwI' je. mumagh
> 'ej be'nalqoqDaj lumagh. qaStaHvIS wej jarmey batlhHa'
> ngachchuqqa'taH Qumchu'taHvIS. quvHa'qu' bangwI' cha'DIch.
Do you mean {nga'chuq}?
> 'ej qaStaHvIS wa' Hogh Hop. ghogh HablI' lo'. murI' 'ej maQumlI'
> qaStaHvIS loS lup. juHjupmaj rI'
juHjupma'
> 'ej QumlI' qaStaHvIS loS rep.
> mu'oy'qu' Qumchu'taHvIS.
>
> chaq vIHoH vIneH, 'ach tera'Daq vIHoHchugh chut vIbIv vaj
> vIHoHbe'. tera'Daq ghaHlu'taHDI', tera'ngan Dalu'nIS. [When in
> Rome...]
Ack! I don't think you can put {-lu'} on a pronoun like that! Maybe
tera'Daq SaHtaHvIS vay', tera'ngan DanIS.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97321.4