tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Dec 07 17:11:30 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
qeqqu'
- From: Matt-5 <[email protected]>
- Subject: qeqqu'
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 12:11:12 +1100 (AEDT)
- In-Reply-To: <Chameleon.951207013441.pesachg@learnskills@>
ghItlh ghunchu'wI':
> pab chutvam qawlu'meH qeqqu'nISlu'taH.
vIghItlh:
>jIQochbe'qu'. (qeqqu' - is this canon, or a <Qagh>?)
jang ghunchu'wI':
> What's the problem? It's {qeq} "practice" plus {-qu'} (emphatic).
mu'tlheghlIj laDtaHvISlu', Qagh tu'be'lu'. yabwIjDaq 'oH Qagh.
mojaQ 'oH <-qu'> 'e' vItlhojbe'pu'! <TKD> vIlo'pu' 'ej tera'ngan Hol
jatlhlu'taHvIS, <fierce, be fierce> 'oH[*] <qu'> 'e' vItu'pu'!
tera'Daq jIHmo', nonchoHlaw'taH yabwIj...
[*] I know <'oH> isn't really the right word to use in this case. Can
anyone suggest a better one?
Is it clear enough that my <tera'ngan Hol jatlhlu'taHvIS> refers only to
the subordinate clause? (eg "I observed that, while speaking Terran, <qu'>
means <fierce>", rather than, "While speaking Terran I observed that
<qu'> means <fierce>")
taghqIj
C /\ T ...watlhtaHghach[**] luQanbogh tIQaw'!
F /()\ C ...CM is ATMA!
C /____\ ...http://ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au/~cthulhu
GANTA
[**] "Ongoing" purity... the <-taHghach> in this case is justified {{:-)