tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Apr 05 12:56:15 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: qajatlh
- From: d'Armond Speers <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC: qajatlh
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 1994 00:52:14 -0400 (EDT)
trI'Qalvo':
> >tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaH vIHem.
> One error! Very nice, qor!
> You actually have a subordinate clause in the first sentence, which you forgot
> to mark with a type 9 suffix. You can't have two verbs just following one
> another as you have originally, unless the second one (the one on the right)
> is <neH>, <jatlh> or <ja'>. (Please refer to the section on sentences as
> objects on pages 65-67 to see why these are the only verbs which can be used
> this way). The addition of the suffix -mo' ("because") to your first verb
> clears this problem up:
>
> tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaHmo', vIHem.
> "Because I am continuing to learn Klingon, I am proud"
Before I make my comments, I'll say this clearly. I agree completely
with HoD trI'Qal's analysis and interpretation here. (Not that I ever
have, to my memory, actually *disagreed* with trI'Qal!).
My question is about the assertion, "you can't have two verbs just
following one another...unless the second one is <neH>, <jatlh>, or
<ja'>. But, what about those as mentioned in HolQeD 3:1 in Krankor's
article, double imperatives, and the "bite his leg off!" example? I
just sent off a bunch of insults to Lawrence (hehe, I mean, in the
context of the contest!), two of which combined sentences in this way.
The only way the combination made sense was *without* the <'e'>
pronoun.
Just curious.
> >------ wollof snoitalsnart ------
>
> nuqjatlh?
"translations follow" in reverse.
--Holtej