tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 06 23:56:28 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
KLBC: qajatlh
- From: [email protected] (Mark E. Shoulson)
- Subject: KLBC: qajatlh
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 11:54:17 -0400
- In-Reply-To: Will Martin's message of Wed, 6 Apr 94 13:47:43 EDT <[email protected]>
>From: Will Martin <[email protected]>
>Date: Wed, 6 Apr 94 13:47:43 EDT
>On Apr 5, 10:39pm, "trI'Qal" wrote:
>...
>> >tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaH vIHem.
>> >
>> >wo' Degh boghaj'a'?
>> >naDev Degh DalI''a'?
>>
>> nom Daghojlaw'lI'mo', bIquvqu'!
>> majQa'!
>>
>> 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"
>> --HoD trI'Qal
>Good. I'd like to add another possible version of this:
> tlhIngan Hol vIghojtaH 'e' vIHem
> "I am proud that I am learning Klingon language."
>When I saw the original, I thought this was what the original intent of
>the message, but the speaker just dropped the {'e'} pronoun. Noting the
>exceptional cases {neH, jatlh, ja'} without mentioning the sentence-as-object
>construction may prove to be confusing, since it doesn't give a new student a
>place to look to understand why it would have made any difference to have
>used those verbs (TKD 6.2.5).
Hmmm. Well, possibly. I mean, it's certainly feasible that the object of
"be proud" should be construed in context as "what you're proud of", but
the "-mo'" construction seems a lot more natural and less prone to
confusion to me, anyway.
>charghwI'
~mark