tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Sep 29 05:35:10 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



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

Re: KLBC: {-chuq}



>From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
>Date: Tue, 27 Sep 94 20:30:22 EDT
>According to Igor Nekyha:
>> 
>> As a beginner, I'm probably missing something, but why not just say:
>> 
>>     peghmey niHta' tera'nganvo' romuluSnganvo' je
>
>Yes, you are a beginner and you are missing something. If this
>means anything at all, it means, "From the Romulan and from the
>Teran accomplished stealing secrets." That doesn't mean very
>much.

It is possible to interpret this in a way which does make sense and which is 
consistent with the descriptions in TKD. I didn't realise that other people 
weren't interpreting it that way.

>> There's nothing I can find in TKD which says that subjects can't take the -vo
>'
>> suffix, though I admit there may not be many situations in which it would
>> be appropriate.
>> 
>> -- 
>> EEG
> 
>Read 3.3.5 again, especially at the top of page 27. "Similarly,
>in Klingon, nouns which indicate SOMETHING OTHER THAN SUBJECT
>OR OBJECT usually must have some special indication of exactly
>what their function is. Unlike English, this is accomplished BY
>USING SUFFIXES." (My emphasis) Here, he is telling you that
>type 5 noun suffixes are for nouns which are not subjects or
>objects.

He is not ruling out putting type 5 suffixes on the subject, just saying that 
you usually need them on the extra nouns in a sentence.

-- 
EEG



Back to archive top level