tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 23 11:02:57 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: be'nalwI' Qagh
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: be'nalwI' Qagh
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 14:02:48 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> from "Marc Paige" at Feb 23, 98 09:44:41 am
According to Marc Paige:
> charghwI'
>
> HIvqa' veqlargh! <ngaS> vIlo'. <ngeH> vIHech. mu'ghom vIlo'be'. yabwIj
> vIlo' neH. not Qaghvetlh vIchenmoHqa'.
'ej not Qaghvetlh'e' Dachenqa'moH.
> jIghItlhqa':
>
> -----
> HIQoy
> po'be'mo' Qagh be'nalwI'.
> jabbI'ID bIngDaq DeghwIj boleghDI' jabbI'IDmey vIngeH 'e' tISov.
> DaH DaqvamDaq jabbI'ID chenmoH cha' net Sov.
> tlhIngan Hol vIlo' neH. lo'laHbe' be'nalwIj.
As stated, you either mean, "I merely use the Klingon
language," or "She wants me to use the Klingon language." I
suspect you wanted to say, "I use only the Klingon language,"
or "Only I use the Klingon language." The former would be
{tlhIngan Hol neH vIlo',} while the latter would be {tlhIngan
Hol vIlo' jIH neH.}
You might also want to put an explicit object on {lo'laHbe'} so
it is not mistaken for the verb meaning "be worthless".
{lo'laH} can either mean "able to use" or "be valuable".
Okrand has declared that {lo'laH} is a verb unto itself and not
just the root-suffix combination. He did this so he could use
{lo'laH} as an adjective. Verbs with Type 5 suffixes on them
can't be used as adjectives, so {lo'laH} had to acquire a new
meaning as a root verb unto itself before Okrand could use it
in this way.
> not jabbI'ID ngeHbogh nuv DaSovlaH.
It is slightly better form to disambiguate the head noun of
your relative clause with {-'e'}. Is it the message or the
person you can never know? As stated, it could be either.
> nuv DaSovchu' DatIchpa'.
This is grammatically correct. As a style point that I seem
uniquely sensitive to, I prefer {DatIchpa'} to come first. Time
stamps simply come at the beginning of Klingon sentences and
this clause is a time reference for {DaSovchu'}. Meanwhile,
Okrand says your word order is perfectly acceptable.
Meanwhile, in terms of content, vaj not vay' vISovlaHchu'mo' not
jItIchlaH 'ej not vISovlu'chu'mo' not mutIchlaH vay'.
> ghojchu' be'nalwIj. Qaghqa'be' ghaH.
> not ghu'vam vIqelqa'
>
> pItlh.
> -----
...
> I have used the proper verb now and separated the sentences as I had
> originally intended. Substituting the proper verb <ngeH> should yield the
> proper message. The last part though, you have understood. The <-chu'>
> suffix here is meant more for the 'clearly' as opposed to 'perfecly'
> aspect. Essentially, my intent is that you should know who you're
> insulting.
But if no one knows me, does that mean I should not be insulted?
> >>>
> ghu'vam vIyajbe'law'.
> <<<
> My wife did not know who she was sending a message to when she chose to
> send the spam to my entire address book. Certain persons flamed her about
> it and would not let it drop through email even after she published an
> apology for her actions. I am simply letting the list know that there are
> two people at my home account and that she made a mistake which she will
> not make again.
*spammer* mojHa'mo' be'nallI', jIQuch.
> toH DaH ghu'vam Dayaj'a'
HIja'.
> ------------------------------------
> SI'IluD
> wa'Hu' jIboghbe'
charghwI'