tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 30 16:55:05 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: mu'ghom
ghItlh pagh:
><qaSpu'vIS> just doesn't work, though. The dictionary you just received will
>tell you that <-taH> must always go with <-vIS>, so you can't use another
>aspcet suffix. It also doesn't make much sense - "while Christmas was having
>happened".
This has been pointed out. Yup, I see it here right on page 43. I was trying
to somehow say "for Christmas" or "on Christmas". The timestamp way is very
elegant.
>*Christmas* jaj, tlhIngan mu'ghom vIHev.
>This is OK, but sounds a bit weird. Instead of using <QaH> as a noun, use it
>as a verb:
>
>muQaHqu'.
luq.
>> QaQpu' 'oH 'ach Qatlhpu' 'oH.
>
>OK - time out. Way too many aspect suffixes. Klingon doesn't have tense, and
><-pu'> and <-ta'> don't mean past tense - they mean completion. What you are
>saying here is "It completed the act of being good, but ..." Every time you
>want to use <-pu'> or <-ta'>, think about it and see if that's what you
>mean, and even if it is, decide if the suffix is necessary.
jIyaj.
>> 'ach poH tlhIngan Hol mu' 'oH pongwIj'e'
>> 'e' vIghojpu'.
>
>Your new dictionary will also tell you that a type seven (aspect) suffix
>cannot go on the verb after <'e'>. In any case, you don't really need it.
Ahh. I see it. Page 66.
>> Satlho' 'e' QaH'a'
>> tunobta' 'ej QaH'a' tunobtaH.
>
>If you want to say "I thank you for helping me", you
>need to figure out exactly what the "for" here means and reprase a little:
>"I thank you because you help me."
luq.
>I also don't think <-ta'> is the right aspect suffix here. <-ta'> puts a
>great deal of emphasis on intention...I think <-pu'> is much better for this.
>
>tuQaHpu'mo' 'ej tuQaHtaHmo' Satlho'.
>
>Good use of prefixes, though. English speakers often get lost in the
>difference between you (singular) and you (plural).
qatlho'. Dun SovlIj.
netlh