tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Sep 24 19:25:33 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: to be or not to be
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: to be or not to be
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 19:25:26 -0700
At 14:08 97-09-24 -0700, muHwI' wrote:
}ghItlh Qov:
}> You'd be in trouble if you tried to say "lunch is the dish the man
}> prepares" with this construction, but as long as the type 5 noun
}> suffix falls on the noun that is the head of the relative clause,
}> this works.
}
}So you mean this is incorrect? (it does sound weird, though)
}--> {megh 'oH nay''e' vutbogh loD}
I don't know that it is incorrect. It *does* have the topic marker on the
subject noun. Perhaps that {-'e'} can do double duty. It doesn't actually
break any rules, it's just ... well ... um ...
}How would you say it? chay' Dajatlh SoH'e'?
I would recast the sentence to avoid it. It does make more sense in English
and Klingon to say {megh vut loD} "The man prepares lunch."
}Where must the type five suffix come at?
}nuqDaq 'oH mojaq vagh Daq'e'?
Literally: Where is the location of suffix number five.
I see you're practicing 'to be' sentences, just don't forget to consider
ways to say things that don't use to be. Like {nuqDaq mojaq vagh vIlannIS}.
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian