tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 02 16:19:17 2004

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

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

Re: lut tlhegh

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Regina Reusser" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: lut tlhegh

{Dajqu'choHlaw' lutmaj. jIQuch. 'ach wa'logh bIQaghbej, 'ej wa'logh 
bIQaghlaw'}
This is turning into a cool little story. Awesome! But I found one definite 
mistake, and one "maybe mistake".

> maDachtaHvIS juHDaq ratlh 'e' vIra', 'ach qachvo' ghoSta'law'.

Suffix order: {ghoSlaw'ta'}, not {ghoSta'law'}

> juHlIj yIchegh 'ej yIloS neH."

Maybe a mistake, not sure. {neH}, when used on verbs, *only* trivializes the 
verb's action.
When used on a noun, it indicates that that noun, and nothing else, is 
involved.

{SoHvaD jI'agh}:
{puq vIqIp neH} means "I only hit the child" (It's not like it was a big 
deal)
It doesn't mean "I only hit the child" (And nothing more, I didn't do 
anything else)

and {puq neH vIqIp} means "I hit the only the child" (I didn't hit something 
else.)

So if your intended meaning above was something like "Just wait, as opposed 
to going to look for him, or killing me", then your usage is off.

If you meant "Just wait, it won't be long, you'll see." then this is 
correct.

FWIW, I read the second meaning.

'ej tugh lutmaj vItaHmoH. 'ach qaSbogh wanI'mey vIwIvnIS. (wej cha' targh 
HoH puq, qar'a'?) }}; )

--ngabwI'
Beginners' Grammarian
Klingon Language Institute
http://kli.org
HovpoH 702117.4

Back to archive top level