tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Mar 17 05:27:10 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KBLC- jIbeplaw
- From: trI'Qal <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KBLC- jIbeplaw
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 18:24:06 -0400 (EDT)
*** 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