tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 17 05:27:10 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KBLC- jIbeplaw




*** BEGINNER ***


majIqvo':


>gItlh qor:
>
>> 	mamoSlaHbe'chugh, jIHeQqan
>
>mamoSbej!  mughbejghach bIneHQo'.  mughbejghach jIneH.  mamoSchuqbej!

OUCH!  Okay, I corrected this once, and I hope I don't see it again... the word 
is <ghItlh>, not ?gItlh?.  There is no 'g' alone in Hol!

You used prefixes with no object, when you had an object to your verb... So it 
should have been Da- and vIneH.  Also you used -Qo' when you definitely should 
have used -be'.  (Yes, I have read the recent posts on this.  I am up-to-date 
on my reading, not on my answering... but that should be fixed over this 
weekend... so expect lots of mail from me Saturday and Sunday. *grins*)  -Qo' 
is used to mean to refuse... you are saying here "You refuse to want the 
translation", which isn't what you want.  You should have said <mughbejghach 
bIneHbe'>.  I don't know why you have the -bej on mugh, unless you are going 
along with the idea that -ghach cannot be used except on verbs with suffixes, 
and since that is a much-debated topic on the list, I will accept -ghach used 
either on suffixed verbs or on just the verb stems.


>(Sorry for the -ghach change.  I now understand how ugly that is.. How else
>would you nominalize that?)


There really isn't anything inherently WRONG with -ghach, just that since we 
aren't really too certain how it is used exactly, it is a controversial 
subject.  There isn't anything wrong with what you have, but the alternative is 
to use <mugh> as a verb:  mamugh DaneHbe'  "You don't want that we translate."  
 Note that this is actually using <mamugh> as the object of <neH>.  Look on 
pages 65-67. especially noting that <neH> is one of the exceptions listed on 
page 67 for more information on this construct.

--HoD trI'Qal




Back to archive top level