tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jan 07 06:07:03 2011
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: van mu'mey puS je
I've seen this a couple times now, so I feel compelled to offer a correction here. Pronouns are unnecessary with an "adjectival" verb. Saying {tlhaQ 'oH} is exactly the same thing as saying {tlhaQ}.
But that's just a matter of style. I have to comment because it gets worse. {'e' vImugh 'e' Qatlh 'oHpu'} has a string of problems. First of all, if you start stringing out {'e'} constructions, you start treading on thin ice. Once is enough. Twice is pushing it. It's fine to refer back to a previous sentence, which is what {'e'} does. It's less fine to refer back to a previous sentence that refers back to a previous sentence (that refers back to a previous sentence, etc.).
But the {...'e' Qatlh 'oHpu'} has two serious problems:
1. The word {'oH} can EITHER be used as a PRONOUN or as a VERB, but not BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. If you add {-pu'} to it, you are using it as a verb, but if you are putting it after {Qatlh}, you are using it as a pronoun. Make up your mind.
2. {Qatlh} cannot take a direct object. {'e'} is a direct object.
Chew on this as a possible way of saying what I think you were trying to say:
Qatlh mu'tlheghlIj vImughmeH Qu'.
The task of translating your sentence is difficult. (The "in order that I translate your sentence" task is difficult.)
I think that {'e'} gets overused and {-meH} gets underused by a lot of Klingon speakers, but that's just an opinion.
pItlh.
lojmIt tI'wI' nuv
On Jan 6, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Ruben Molina wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Lieven Litaer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> tlhaQbej. QInlIj wa'DIch vaIlaDDI', wamwI' SoH 'e' vIHar, wotmey jon wam
>> je vImISmo'.
>
> 'e' tlhaQ 'oH je. wamwI' QaQ jIH je.
> {vIlaDDI'} DaghItlh 'e' DaHechpu', qar'a'
>
>> pIj jum tlhIngan Hol: jonbe' jonwI', Deghbe' DeghwI' 'ej De'be' [sic]
>> De'wI'. reH Sen SenwI', 'ach reH rIlbe' rIlwI'. :-)
>
> 'e' vImugh 'e' Qatlh' 'oHpu', 'ach qech vIyajlaHpu'
>
> Quvar qatlho'.
>
>
>