|
lu'
ja' charghwI'
>>>
> > HIvqa' veqlargh! <ngaS> vIlo'. <ngeH> vIHech. mu'ghom vIlo'be'. yabwIj > vIlo' neH. not Qaghvetlh vIchenmoHqa'. 'ej not Qaghvetlh'e'
Dachenqa'moH. <<<
reH mu'vetlh vIQubDI'
yabwIjDaq nargh <chenmoH>. wej jIyajchu'. *Okrand*vaD jabbI'ID vIngaS.
bIlugh 'e' vIHar. cha' ben jImIS. DaH jImISlaw'lI'.
>>>
> 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.} <<<
I thought that <neH>
came at the end of the sentence to mean "only, merely, or just". I
just looked it up and found that is does follow the verb, but only trivializes
the verb. I had meant to say the former in your response (Only I use the Klingon
Language.)
>>>
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. <<<
Is the context not
enough? In conversation, I would think that I would understand this. (Of course,
I wrote this, so I know what I intended.) What about changing the suffix order
to <lo'be'laH>? Never mind. As I wrote it, I immediately hated the way it
looked and sounded. toH, jIQochbe'.
BTW, I have posted a question about <chenmoH> to the news group for
Dr. Okrand. I know that this word has been discussed before, but I would still
like to see if he has any comments. I don't recall his input on the issue. I had
gotten this wrong on the postal course also.
>>>
> 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. <<<
This still confuses me. Which noun gets the <'e'>? I tried to follow
the discussions before, but got lost in the length of the replies.
>>>
> 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. <<<
maQoch, qay'be'. I
don't see this as a real timestamp, just a sequence. I understand your point
though.
>>>
Meanwhile, in terms of
content, vaj not vay' vISovlaHchu'mo' not
jItIchlaH 'ej not vISovlu'chu'mo' not mutIchlaH vay'. ....
But if no one knows me,
does that mean I should not be insulted?
ghobe'. <-chu'> means
so much more than I wanted the english to say. (I really like the precision of
Klingon!) Of course, I wanted to convey that you should know with whom you're
communicating with before you start <mu'qaD veS>. Some people don't know
how to handle this and if they get into the situation accidentally... well
that's how wars start {{{;-). How would you convey this meaning?
---------------
SI'IluD
wa'Hu'
jhIboghbe'
|