tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 29 10:09:58 1994
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Ahem.
>Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 19:19:31 -0500
>Originator: [email protected]
>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>On second thought (and I expect to think on this one AT LEAST 3
>times), perhaps the word sequence should be as it is in TKD,
>though the topicalizer is probably there more as a sign of
>emphasis (as in URGENCY) than as the noun pronoun noun'e'
>construction dictates. If this is true, then the phrase would
>be equally correct as:
>nuqDaq 'oH puchpa'?
>Again, nuqDaq is a locative and not the object of {'oH}.
That's more or less how I thought of this, when I considered it. The
word-order never bothered me; "Qanqor ghaH" made me think "he is Krankor";
for "Krankor is a Klingon" I'd have said "tlhIngan ghaH Qanqor'e'" anyway,
putting Krankor in the final position, where it fits in with the sentence
you're thinking about. I viewed the seemingly extraneous "-'e'" as just an
oddity of the language, probably copied from the common "'oH X'e'" sentence
structure. So I'd caution against dropping it; it's probably become so
much a part of the language it would sound archaic not to have it.
>charghwI'
>--
> \___
> o_/ \
> <\__,\
> "> | Get a grip.
> ` |
I'm really starting to like this .sig.
~mark
tlhIngan Hol laDwI'vaD:
jItlhIjnIS; jImughnIS 'e' vIlIjlaw'pu'. naDev charghwI' qay' vIjang 'e'
vInID. jang'eghpu' je ghaH.