tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Oct 28 21:42:54 2001
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: ghIj
> >I'd probably recast - perhaps <<lut ngo'qu'>> (ancient story),
> >corresponding to the English expression "tales of old".
>
> So how about {qaStaHvIS jajmey ngu'qo'} or {qaStaHvIS jajmey tIQ}?
Watch your suffixes. (-qu', not -qo')
Ya, this works ok. I think in this context tIQ is better than ngu'qu'.
> Also, can you combine apposition with noun-noun constructs? If I want to
> say "The batleth of Worf, son of Mogh, a Starfleet officer", can I say
> {wo'rIv, mogh puqloD, 'ejyo' yaS betleH}, or does apposition only work
with
> complete noun phrases, i.e. {wo'rIv betleH, mogh puqloD, 'ejyo' yaS}, and
it
> would be understood that the apposition applies to the possessor? Or is
> this kind of thing simply not possible at all? I suppose in this
particular
> instance I could say {'ejyo' yaS wo'rIv mogh puqloD betleH}, but (assuming
> this even works in this particular case) this would not work in general
for
> this kind of thing. In a pinch, I could make two sentences, i.e. {wo'rIv
> betleH. mogh puqloD 'ejyo' yaS je ghaH wo'rIv} (except, of course,
{wo'rIv
> betleH} isn't a complete sentence).
We do have canon with apposition. I'm sure voragh can pull that up for us.
(It's the Skybox card about the Duras sisters, I think.) I don't recall if
any of the canon apposition has possession tho.
betleH should go at the end.
"Worf's betleH, son of Mogh..." or "Worf, son of Mogh's betleH..."
DloraH, BG