tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 25 06:07:59 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

Re: Headless relatives and {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}

Scott Willis ([email protected])

• From: "Scott Willis" <[email protected]>
• Subject: Re: Headless relatives and {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}
• Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:07:03 -0400
• References: <[email protected]>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 5:37 AM
Subject: Re: Headless relatives and {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}


> QeS lagh
> Expanding a little on the example you gave above, would {SuDbogh 'ej
wovbogh
> Dargh} and {romuluSngan Sambogh nejwI' 'ej HoHbogh} be acceptable?

Yes, they would mean "Tea that is yellow" and "Romulan Hunter-Killer".

As a personal preference, it seems easier on my brain if the subject of the
clause comes after the verbs:

{SuDbogh 'ej wovbogh Dargh} and {romuluSngan Sambogh 'ej HoHbogh nejwI'}

It doesn't change the meaning any, it just seems to "click" faster.

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian,
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org/
HovpoH 701458.6

• References:
  • Re: Headless relatives and {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}
    • From: "QeS lagh" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: a little bit pregnant?
• Next by Date: Re: Headless relatives and {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}
• Previous by thread: Re: Headless relatives and {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}
• Next by thread: Re: Headless relatives and {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level