tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Dec 15 13:41:03 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
qaqIHneS
- From: Alan Anderson <[email protected]>
- Subject: qaqIHneS
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 95 16:19:56 EST
taj'IH wrote:
>pabpo'pu' tuHoHbe' ! :-)
With my head on rather loosely, I wrote:
>Here's one thing yoDtargh overlooked in his commentary. Since you are
>using the imperative prefix {tu-} here, you need to use the imperative
>"rover" {-Qo'} instead of {-be'}: {tuHoHQo'!} (See TKD 4.3, page 47.)
~mark writes:
>Not quite. The author is not necessarily speaking imperatively here;
>after all, there's the indicative prefix. "tuHoHbe'" simply means
>"you do not kill me." Perhaps it's an expression of confidence. If
>indeed it is a request/command not to be killed, it has to be
>"HIHoHQo'", with the *imperative* prefix. Please don't forget those;
>they're there for a reason! ghunchu'wI', you know that!
va va va DaH HIHoH jIQaghqa'pa'. (jIghIQnISqu')
I just made myself a whole collection of tlhIngan Hol reference sheets
to tape on the wall by my computer. Numbers, noun and verb suffixes,
adverbial words, a bunch of stative verbs, and the verb prefixes...
but I accidentally labelled {tu-} as imperative. HIvqa' veqlargh!
(Note that I wrongly called it imperative in my misguided critique.)
Many apologies, taj'IH. I attacked a nonexistent problem -- your
{tuHoHbe'} is a perfectly reasonable sentence. As ~mark (correctly)
suggested, though, you probably want to say {HIHoHQo'}.
--------------------------------------------
Alan Anderson Delco Electronics
{ghunchu'wI'} Remanufacturing Services
Test Equipment System Software Group