tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 01 11:52:12 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Emperor
- From: Robyn Stewart <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Emperor
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 11:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
---Steven Boozer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally, I think {ta'} is the one used as a rank or title --
based solely
> on the fact that most ranks are one syllable words. I realize that
some
> titles (e.g. {DevwI'} and {ra'wI'}) don't fit this pattern, though
they do
> follow a personal name. Okrand on titles:
>
> "When used with an individual's name, a title follows the name:
tlha'a HoD
> (Captain Klaa), cheng Sa' (General Chang), qeng la' (Commander
Kang), and so
> on." (KGT p.52)
>
> "If someone has an official title, such as a military rank or a
position in
> the government, this title follows the name; for example, martaq Sa'
> (General Martok), ghawran Qang (Chancellor Gowron). When addressing
such a
> person, the title is left off only when the occasion is decidedly
> nonofficial." (KGT p.197f)
ngerlIj vIparHa'. patvam vIlo'choH.
> Thus, {pa' 'elpu' qeylIS ta'} "Emperor Kahless has entered the room"
vs.
> {DaH voDleH'e' vIlegh vIneH} "I want to see the *emperor* now!"
Or {voDleH'e' DaH vIlegh vIneH}
A little-invoked rule allows you to put the adverb after the object if
the object carries the type five suffix {-'e'}. Nothing wrong with
not moving the adverb, just fun to remember that it's allowed.
> Maltz, of course, could prove me wrong at any time.
What he said. Please, no one mistake our both liking a theory for its
being correct.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com