tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Oct 30 09:03:32 1993
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Re: Dubghach
I received the following two letters, and I think they were meant for someone
else . . .
>
>
> >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]
________________
markvo':
>>>tera'nganDaq nuq Hech "trick or treat"'e'? "yuch chonobbe'chugh, vaj
>>>qatoj" Hech 'e' vIQub. 'ach ghaytan Dochvetlh jatlhbe' tlhInganna'. "yuch
>>>HInob!" "yuch chonobbe'chugh vaj bIHegh" joq vImaSlaw'. tojghach luparbej
>>>tlhInganpu'.
>>ghobe', jIQoch. tlhInganna' jIHbej 'ej vIjatlh 'e' vIHech! {{:-)
>>'ach jIQochbe': "yuch chonobbe'chugh vaj qatoj" 'oHlaw'. teHbej,
>>tojghachmey muSbej tlhInganpu'.... parHa'chugh, yuch lunobQo'!
>>"yuch chonobbe'chugh vaj bIHegh" Daja'chugh, vaj jang "lu', choHoH 'e'
>>yInIDqu'!" 'ej qaSbej may' ('ej qaSbe' yuch Sopghach {{;-)
>>tlhIngan yupma'mey Dayajbe'ba'.
>jIHarchu'be'. tlhIngan jatlhghach motlhqu' mu'tlheghmey "bI-X-be'chugh vaj
>bIHegh". "idiom"mey motlh bIH. "bIje'be'chugh vaj bIHegh" jatlhDI' Suy,
>"choHoH 'e' yInID" jangbe' je'wI'. qatoj 'e' qabuQchugh, Dogh buQghachvam.
jIQochtaH. "idiom" 'oHba' "bIje'be'chugh vaj bIHegh"'e', teH. 'ach "idiom"mey
bIHba'be' qachvam lo'bogh Hoch mu'tlhegh'e'. jaghvaD "bIjeghbe'chugh vaj
bIHegh!" vIjatlhchugh, **vIHechqu'**! net Sov! Duja'chugh tlhIngan ngevwI'
"bIDIlbe'chugh vaj bIHegh", ghaH yIHar 'e' vIchup! vaj rut "idiom"na' 'oH, rut
"idiom"Hey 'oH, 'ach rut vItna' 'oH.
"Halloween"vaD, "...vaj bIHegh" lo'be'lu' 'e' vIHar. mu'tlheghvam ja' 'Iv?
puqpu'. HoHlaHbe' puqpu' net Sov, vaj not lobHa'vIp vay'. 'ej yuch lunob
tlhInganpu' lu'nobQo'vIpDI' *neH* net Sov (yuchchaj lumuSHa'qu' tlhInganpu'!)
'ach puqvo' buQghachna' 'oH "...vaj qatoj"'e'. vaj chaHvaD wInob. {{:-)
>>>nagh mate with (v); in {targhlIj yInagh yIruch}. May be {ngagh}, but
>>> seems to be {nagh}.
>>jISovchu'be' 'ach jIHvaD "ngagh" 'oHlaw'. vI'Ijqa'nIS.
>qIt.
vI'Ijqa'ta' 'ej vuDwIj vIchoHta'. DaH qaQochbe': "nagh" 'oH.
Petervo':
>>
>> >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?
Hmmmmm. mu'tlheghvetlhDaq "implicit"laH "jIHvaD" 'e' vIleghlaH. 'ach
tera'ngan HolDaq "explicit"pu'. vIparHa' 'e' vISovbe', 'ach vIlajlaH.
qalughmoHHa'. {{:-)
>I guess that this could get into whether or not indirect objects are
>(or should be) shown in the prefixes. pab veS vIneHbe'.
rIn pab veS. moHaqDaq "indirect object" lanlu' net ta'laHbej. "Power
Klingon"Daq ta'taH Okrand. tlhejbogh _HolQeD_Daq Dochvam wIja'chuq jIH mark
(shoulson) joq.
--Qanqor