tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jan 21 01:00:35 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: mu'tlheghmey
- From: Qov <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: mu'tlheghmey
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 00:59:47 -0800
At 21:20 98-01-20 -0800, Qermaq wrote:
}Hi Peter. Welcome to the list!
}
}ghItlh Peter Qov je:
}
}>}DujHommeyraj bIQaw'
}>}"You destroyed your little ships!" (presens actually I know)
}
}If this is Lily's line to Picard in ST:FC (He chucked something at the wall
}and buster a model ship display), <Da-> would be appropriate, and the <-lIj>
}suffix is required for possession. This leads me to believe "presens" is
}actually "present" - as in the tense of the sentense as Peter wrote it in
}Klingon, rather than using "past tense" as the English did.
Thank you Qermaq. And I was so proud of myself for understanding all the
KLBCs today.
}<DujmeylIj mach DaQaw'>
}
}I'll allow Qov to do the teaching here, but in short, the Klingon sentence
}is neither in past nor in present tense. (It's not future either.)
Right. {DujmeylIj mach DaQaw'} is perfectly translated as "you destroyed
your little ships" or "you will destroy your little ships" or "you destroy
your little ships" Klingon simply doesn't have a thing you add to the verb
to make it past or future tense, any more than English has a thing you add
to the beginning of a verb to indicate the object. If the time of an action
is important, you just say the time. {wa'Hu' DaQaw'} - "you destroyed them
yesterday"
Qov [email protected]
Beginners' Grammarian