tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Aug 15 06:19:12 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: chu'wi' jIH



>From: "d'Armond Speers" <[email protected]>
>Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 23:11:50 -0400 (EDT)


>Randallvo':

>> nuqneH!

>nuqneH, and welcome!  naDev bIQuch 'e' vItul.

*blink*.  Oops, took me a second.  I read "Qoch" for some reason; I hope
you will disagree here?  A very Klingon sentiment!  :-)  But I see what you
said.

>> cheghbe'bogh poHDaq yIQongtaHbe' 'a yIQamchoH
>> 'ej jaj tlhIv yInaDHa', ghop HoS yIlo'taHvIS.

>If you want {poH} to be the head of the relative clause 
>{cheghbe'bogh}, then it can't have the {-Daq} suffix on it.  Locatives 
>are not subjects or objects (TKD 3.3.5).

>Boy, that first sentence sure is a whopper.  The problem in the 
>translation is the verb "sleep."  In English, you're using a verb plus 
>a particle to construct a complex meaning, "sleep away," which means 
>more than the meanings of the two words themselves.  {Qong} just 
>doesn't carry that meaning.  You need to play with it more, first by 
>exploring what the original English means.  Something like, {poH nI' 
>yIQongbe'}.

Just one point here, Holtej, that needs to be made both on the original
*and* your correction.  You don't use "-be'" on imperatives.  That should
be "yIQongQo'".

>> yoDtargh

>--Holtej, Beginner's Grammarian


~mark, Grammarian doing the rare pulling-rank thing and feeling a little
weird about it.



Back to archive top level