tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 22 06:37:28 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Idea.
- From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Idea.
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 09:37:24 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> (message from Silauren Half-Elven on Mon, 21 Nov 1994 23:44:22 -0500)
>Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 23:44:22 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: Silauren Half-Elven <[email protected]>
>On Mon, 21 Nov 1994, Johnny Wayne Jr Rittimann wrote:
>> Whether anyone does this or not, I just want to say:
>>
>> tlhIngan Hol vIghItlh 'e' vImevQo'! qaqoy'! reH jabbI'IDlIj muQaH.
>well, not that its my place to correct you, but let me say a couple of
>things here:
You're right, it's not your place to correct him. Please read the FAQ and
give the Grammarian(s) a chance first!
>> tlhIngan Hol vIghItlh 'e' vImevQo'!
><-Qo'> is a suffix only used on imperatives; <-be'> is what you want
>here. <-be'> acts as the negation of most verbs, but it can't go on
>imperatives; that's why we have <-Qo'>. maj!
This is wrong. It's true that -be' can't go on inmperatives, but it is not
true that -Qo' only goes on imperatives. -Qo' indicates refusal, as
opposed to simple negation. There is a cannon example of "bIjatlhQo'chugh"
for "If you refuse to speak." So, I'd say "tlhIngan Hol vIghItlh 'e'
vImevQo'" is in fact excellent, better than it would have been with
"-be'": I won't stop writing Klingon (i.e. I indent not to stop, I refuse
to stop, not just a statement of negated fact).
>> reH jabbI'IDlIj muQaH
>here, <jabbI'IDlIj> is your subject, and thus it should go *after* the
>verb. you've got the right pronominal prefix on the verb (<mu-> for
>it-to-me); word order is your only mistake. you should have
> <reH muQaH jabbI'IDlIj>
Unless, of course, he's talking of more than one person's messages, which
seems likely from the context, in which case "jabbI'IDraj" would be
correct.
~mark