tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jun 06 06:25:51 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: -jaj on indefinite subjects
- From: Jason Coyle <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: -jaj on indefinite subjects
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:24:49 -0400
jatlh qoror:
>> My question: Can -lu' be translated this way with -jaj?
>
>Why not? What's wrong with a Type 5 suffux with a Type 9 suffix? Also
witness
>"QuvlIjDaq yIHmey tu'be'lu'jaj," mentioned by others.
My question wasn't so generic as a Type 5 with a Type 9, though I could
have been clearer in that regard. I was more concerned specifically with
how -jaj changes the meaning (or at least English translation) of the
indefinite subject. That is:
DaqaDlu' means "You are challenged"
but does
DaqaDlu'jaj mean "May you *be* challenged"?
It seemed that way, but I'm not a linguist and I'm still learning how the
grammatical hairs can be split. It seemed worth asking. (As to <QuvlIjDaq
yIHmey tu'be'lu'jaj>, I looked for canon, but just got PK, so missed it. I
figured someone would let me know...)
>If you wanted it to be active, how about:
>
>reH qaDmey DaHevjaj
Yeah, that's closer to what I wanted. But if the *-lu'jaj* combo works,
I'll go with it. Brevity seems more Klingon.
Jaes