tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 12 09:16:59 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Klingon on Internet Relay Chat
- From: "Christian Matzke" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Klingon on Internet Relay Chat
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 07:54:46 -0500
- Comments: Authenticated sender is <[email protected]>
- Priority: normal
- Return-Receipt-To: "Christian Matzke" <[email protected]>
On 11 Dec 95 at 19:51, Alan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> maSqa' writes:
> >*Maine*Daq SuvwI' bIr chaH Hoch SuvwI''e'
> >(does that use {Hoch} correctly?)
>
> I don't think so. {Hoch SuvwI'} would mean "everyone's warrior",
> and I think you wanted to say "all warriors". The standard use of
> {Hoch} here is {SuvwI' Hoch}, "all of the warriors". I'm not quite
> sure this "partive" construction follows the noun-noun rule in TKD,
> but it's canon.
Cool, do you have an example of its use in canonical sources?
>
> One other thing about your sentence bothers me. You're using
> {chaH} in its verb form in both senses of "to be" simultaneously.
> {*Maine*Daq chaH SuvwI''e} and {SuvwI' bIr chaH SuvwI''e'} are both
> valid sentences (though the second one is rather convoluted), but
> I'm not sure the combination is reasonable.
I thought adding *Maine*Daq to the front was like adding DaHjaj. If I
were to say DaHjaj SuvwI' bIr chaH SuvwI' Hoch'e' (Today all warriors
are cold warriors) I don't believe you could seperate that into two
sentances:" *all warriors are today", and "all warriors are cold
warriors". Isn't the same thing going on with *Maine*Daq? Perhaps I
have missed something...
> -- ghunchu'wI'
maSqa'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Had I not known that I was dead already,
I would have mourned the loss of my life"
-Ota Dokan, Japanese poet
(written while a knife protruded from his chest)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~