tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Apr 30 07:23:06 2010
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Already
- From: "lojmIt tI'wI' nuv" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Already
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:21:34 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:content-type:mime-version :subject:from:in-reply-to:date:content-transfer-encoding:message-id :references:to:x-mailer; bh=yvbdwYBrCV9s86OorDWPiJu3x+wFNmC4k4QwmsMReAo=; b=lkqQ5IqnwNUbkdBOSHCdyAiVNSUNJgh1tlYyphMxNdWdyxGhCN8kUWu+p/TVhw2SZr igR/v039YrBRHiPOIyRGrE9PJhY51wb4z4lUTrYYANPrXK2i+YNs6G/IMTFsB4QKe9Md B7HyTa1n3Hrs1KVrxxu/mHuHBr2QusHD/lIws=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=FmTFEaBRqwd+e0MC+nFBl2xLY1/7oNTatnsVU52svL5w8wlhDl+eJgwfpV2HLA3IfU PxEqMT6p1AE71T25Qgcaggh/2ABqZf0C0ipAspjLkzGk2xwnlTgRIK+dMhTOiJNauqYe 2CgfX14IxsYR8fI7MZSV+rLhfcBWzVmculIsY=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
jabwI': qa'vIn DaneH'a'?
jIH: ghobe'.
pItlh.
qatlh meqlIj DaQIjnIS? Human SoHba'.
meqlIj DaQIjnISbejchugh, vaj yIjatlh:
qa'vIn yap vItlhutlhta'. jItlhutlhqa' wej vIneH.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
qa'vIn vItlhutlhbe'. yuch vImaS.
On Apr 30, 2010, at 9:33 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I recently tried to express that I did not want to drink coffee since
> I'd already had coffee, but found no klingon word for "already". How
> ever, there is {wej} for "not yet", so I thought that {wejHa'} might
> work. But of course, I can't put a {-Ha'} after an adverb just as if
> it had been a verb...
>
> OTOH, there are some adverbs that are similarly formed, such as
> {DoHa'} (unfortunately) and the pair {pIj} (frequently) and {pIjHa'}
> (infrequently).
>
> So would {wejHa'} (or {wejbe'}) count as an acceptable neologism? It's
> the kind of construction that might occur as slang, for instance.
>
> {wejHa' qavIn vItlhutlhpu'} "I've already had coffee"
>
> Or is it a deeper reason to the lack of the word? It is a bit
> superflous, perhaps {qavIn vitlhutlhpu'} would be more direct, and
> thus more Klingon? Or, for that matter, {qen qavIn vItlhutlhpu'} (I
> have recently had coffee) would be more precise?
>
> Regards,
>
> /buSwI'
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
>
>