tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 11 04:51:06 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Questions with -'e'-
- From: "Klingon Ambassador" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Questions with -'e'-
- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:50:53 PDT
On Wed, Oct. 08 1997, Qov wrote:
>
>97-10-07, Dawut wrote:
>> This example demonstrates the usage of the conjunction <vaj> "then"
>> beginning a sentence to refer to the previous sentence.
>> This is the same structure and usage with <'e'> "that" which is
>> usually followed by a verb of some sort.
>
>Not quite correct. {vaj} means "thus" and can be used to introduce
>any statement that somehow follows from the first one. The word
>{'e'} must follow a sentence and the sentence that follows {'e'} must
>take {'e'} as its object. Not the "same structure and usage."
jIyaj. Maybe I should have used the word "placement" instead of the
phrase "same structure and usage", but I'm not sure that would be the
most accurate either. Thank you for clarifying.
>> Klingon1: yIHmey vIHoH 'e' vItIv. "I enjoy that I kill Tribbles"
>
>qarchu'. Also translatable "I enjoy killing tribbles."
>
>> Klingon2: net Sov Hoch "everyone knows that"
>
>Ahh. A misconception here. {net Sov} by itself means "everyone
>knows that" "it is known that" "one knows." {net} is like {-lu'}:
>the verb it is with has no subject. You could say {'e' Sov Hoch}
>"everyone knows that" or maybe {'e' Sovlu'}. {net Sov} is exactly
>equivalent to, and may be required instead of, {'e' Sovlu'}.
After re-reading section 6.2.5. I completely understand your point.
Your explanation in conjunction with TKD has ended my confusion on this
matter. qatlho'!
>
>> Klingon1: Heghpu' yaS jatlhta' HoD. "The captain said that the
>> officer died."
>> Klingon2: ghorgh 'e' DaQoypu' "When did you hear that?"
>
>Other than that frequently ignored rule about type seven suffixes on
>the verb following {'e'}, this works, too. You don't actually need
>any of the aspect suffixes you have used in these sentences, anyway.
>"The captain had said that the officer had died," you don't really
>mean that, do you?
Once again, you have sent me back to TKD and I have benefitted from it.
I was not ignoring that particular rule, I did not retain it when I last
read it. You have successfully etched it into my memory.
Were you referring to the TYPE 7 suffix {-ta}"accomplished" in the first
sentence, or the TYPE 7 suffix {-pu'} "perfective" in the second
sentence, or both? The first sentence was intended to convey the idea
that the captain had finished saying (not presently in the act of
speaking it) that the officer died (had completed the dying process and
therefore spoken of as an incident occuring in the past).
>
>Holmaj Dayajlaw'. majQa'.
qatlho'qa'. batlh tlhIngan Hol DaghojmoH. Qapla'!
tlhIngan Hol ghojwI',
*Dawut*
[email protected]
[email protected]
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com