tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Dec 17 22:19:35 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: qaqIHneS !
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: qaqIHneS !
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 01:19:03 -0500
In a message dated 95-12-17 15:09:47 EST, you write:
>Here's another of the rare cases where Klingon must use a noun to express
>what an English verb means. Try {"Indiana"Daq 'oH juHwIj'e'}.
>
>-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj
>
>
I really like the construction you just suggested.
However, I will point out what I find to still be a possible error. You
consistently leave {-taH} off the copulative {'oH}, etc. Should your
sentence read {*Indiana*Daq 'oHtaH juHwIj'e'}? RE: TKD p27, Sec. 3.3.5.
This tells me that Klingon apparently cannot have a person or thing,
referred to by a personal pronoun, at a place for only a critical moment.
The person or thing must continue to be at the location, even for a short
span of time. On the other hand, the Appendix has entries: {nuqDaq 'oH Qe'
QaQ'e} and {nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'}. While I cannot argue against existing
facts, I feel that a person or thing needs to continue to be at a location;
so, I add {-taH} to the personal pronouns when the sentence contains a
locative clause.
Perhaps {'oH} and {bIH} do not need {-taH}, while pronouns referring to
sentient beings do?
BTW, you're doing an excellent job of BG.
peHruS