tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Oct 29 15:33:11 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Dubghach
>
>
> >From: Captain Krankor <[email protected]>
> >Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 23:32:07 -0600
>
> >>>ghoSqa'taH DIS poHvetlh. Hu'qa'meH HeghwI'mey poH.
> >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
[...]
> >>never was satisfactorily resolved. Allowing ambiguity, we could do "poHDaq
> >>Hu'qa'bogh Heghpu'wI'mey".
>
> >jIHvaD qay'be'. Qap "Hu'qa'meH Heghpu'wI'mey poH" 'e' vIQub. vIyajchu'pu'
> >'ej qay'ghach vIleghbe'. <shrug>
>
> jI<shrug> jIH je. wa' loD Soj 'oH latlh tar'e'.
>
vaj Heghpu'wI' moj 'oH latlh'e' :)
[...]
>
> >naDev "give me chocolate" Damugh, 'ach tlhIngan HolDaq "yuch yInob"
> >DaghItlhpu'. lughchu'be'. yuch yInob == "Give chocolate". "Give me
> >chocolate" == "yuch HInob" "jIHvaD yuch yInob" joq.
>
> bIlugh.
mu'tlheghDaq 'oHba' "jIHvaD" 'e' vIQub. lojmItDaq ngaSwI' poS ghaj
"Alexander" 'e' luleghDI' 'Iv latlhvaD yuch lunob?
I guess that this could get into whether or not indirect objects are
(or should be) shown in the prefixes. pab veS vIneHbe'.
>
>
> > --Qanqor
>
>
> ~mark
That's my middle name. Anyway...
>
>
Peter Garza
[email protected]