tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Mar 08 15:31:07 1999
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: yIt
In a message dated 3/6/99 9:10:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< ja' T'Lod:
><< juH vIghoS. jIyIt.
> >>
>
>Why not just say:
>juHDaq jIyIt.
Because that is at least as likely to mean "I walk at home" or
"I walk in the home". It's certainly not as clearly expressed
as the {juH vIghoS; jIyIt} that charghwI' suggested. Although
one might be able to interpret the two sentences as indicating
a sequence, the important idea of going home is unmistakable.
To be more certain of being understood, one could make one of
the sentences into a clause tied to the other one:
juH vIghoStaHvIS jIyIt.
juH vIghoS jIyIttaHvIS.
juH vIghoSmeH jIyItlI'.
jIyIttaHmo' juH vIghoSlI'.
-- ghunchu'wI' >>
How should -Daq be interpreted to get my point across without many stares from
the Klingons? The verbs of motion seem to be a stumbling point in that
regard. Also, when used without a motion-verb, how should the noun+Daq
construction be interpreted?
T'Lod