tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Feb 14 12:56:01 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: -bogh (again) as stative
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: -bogh (again) as stative
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:56:12 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Fri, 13 Feb 1998 07:31:23 -0800 (PST) David Trimboli
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
> We visit the factory whose director is my friend.
>
> In Klingon I'd just say
>
> laSvargh wISuch. jupwI' ghaH pIn'e'.
For a little more clarity, I'd say:
laSvargh wISuch. pa' jupwI' ghaH pIn'e'.
While the first sentence is context for the second, the {pa'}
adds a little more attachment between the two sentences.
> SuStel
> Stardate 98120.8
>
> P.S.: Okay, I'll admit it, there IS a way to do this, but it would almost
> certainly be misunderstood by a Klingon speaker.
>
> laSvargh jupwI' ghaHbogh pIn'e' wISuch.
>
> Putting it in parenthesis to clarify:
>
> laSvargh (jupwI' ghaHbogh pIn'e') wISuch.
>
> The relative clause acts as the second noun in the Noun-Noun construction.
> REPEAT: DON'T ACTUALLY USE THIS SENTENCE. YOU WILL BE MISUNDERSTOOD.
Well, you'd be misunderstood because the sentence is
fundamentally flawed. In a noun-noun construction, the first
noun acts as a modifier for the second. That is why it can't
take a Type 5 noun suffix. The first noun can't have a
grammatical function outside the context of the noun-noun
construction, so in this case, you are visiting the boss, not
the factory.
ghunchu'wI' did a better job of recasting this, though on other
instances, SuStel does excellent recastings.
charghwI'