tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Jan 31 07:40:35 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: >>bo'deghmey targhmey je<< (more or less; no word for bee in tlhIngan Hol... )

Scott Willis ([email protected]) [KLI Member] [Hol po'wI']

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Raik Lorenz" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 7:39 AM
Subject: KLBC: >>bo'deghmey targhmey je<< (more or less; no word for bee in
tlhIngan Hol... )

> qIn'orIq:
> There has not yet been a discussion over the following subject matter, as
> long as I am on the list and AFAIK, so:

I had questions about a "variant" of this word, {nga''egh} when I first came
to this list.

> qIn'orIq:
> The sentence {nga'chuq tlhIngan loD tlhIngan be' je.} is grammatical,
> qar'a'?

AFAIK, yes, completely.

> qIn'orIq:
> Would the sentence {tlhIngan be' nga'chuq tlhIngan loD.} be correct, too?

I suspect not. Two reasons:
One, as you cite below, the description says "(subject only)", presumably
indicating this verb is not capable of taking an object.
Two, we have a verb, {ngagh} "to mate (with)", which has even been used in
canon (yea!), and does exactly what your sentence requires from the verb:
{targhlIj yIngagh! yIruch!} "Go mate with your targh!" (PK)
so your sentence, using {ngagh}, would be:
{tlhIngan be' ngagh tlhIngan loD.}

> qIn'orIq:
> Or would it rather be more grammatical to say {tlhIngan be'vaD nga'chuq
> tlhIngan loD.}?

This is almost certainly not what you're going for.
I read this as "The Klingon men mate for the Klingon woman."
{naDev qID qonlaH vay'.} }}: )

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian,
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org/
HovpoH 701109.7

Back to archive top level