tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jan 19 06:33:01 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC warriors etc.
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: KLBC warriors etc.
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 9:32:55 EST
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>; from "tsai kat clio-international" at Jan 19, 95 1:51 am
More good stuff for beginners.
According to tsai kat clio-international:
>
>
> QaghmeywIj DalughmoH. jIQuchqu'.
>
> One more pajama question to see if I got the construction correct:
>
> nIvnavmey tuQ 'ejyo' loD qar'a'? "Starfleet men wear pajamas, don't they?"
Looks fine to me. The only slightly odd thing is that you have
explicitly made nIvnav plural while you did not do that for
loD. It would probably be better form to either say
nIvnav...loD or nIvnavmey...loDpu'. Make them a matched set. If
you want to be clearer that you meant a global statment,
explicit plural may be better, since otherwise you could be
referring to only one man.
> Assorted other sentences:
>
> 1. De' vIleghmo'pu' choHoHnIS 'e' vISov. "Because I saw the information,
> I know that you have to kill me." Does <-nIS> express the correct
> sense of necessity? Is <-'e'> used correctly?
Yes. This looks perfect.
> 2. batlh Heghpu' valQIS'e'. "As for Valkris, she died honorably."
>
> Is <'e'> used correctly?
We are not sure. My own interpretation is that this is the
equivalent of emphasizing the subject, as in the following
context, when the 2nd speaker is somewhat distracted:
1st speaker: batlh Heghpu' valQIS.
2nd speaker: batlh Heghpu' matlh Dajatlh'a'?
1st speaker: ghobe. batlh Heghpu' valQIS'e'!
Basically, it emphasizes the noun. Krankor found this very
useful to disambiguate the head noun of a relative clause when
the verb with {-bogh} has both an explicit subject and object.
Okrand agreed and now, that is the most grammatically
productive use of {-'e'}. As for its original intent by Okrand,
it does not seem to really work the way Nick explains that a
topicalizer works in other languages. Instead, it just seems to
emphasize the noun, much like an English speaker would say a
noun with a louder, more strained voice.
> 3. SuvwI' chaHchugh tlhIngan loD SuvwI' chaH'a' tlhIngan be' je?
>
> "If Klingon men are warriors, are Klingon women warriors also?"
> Can <je> be used this way, or, how does one say 'also'?
In this case, {je} would be better placed after {chaH'a'}. It
then would serve the adverbial "also" function. If it follows a
noun, it is a noun conjunction, meaning "and". If it follows a
verb, it is an adverbial, meaning "also".
> Dah jimevnIS.
> Qapla, rIn {{8-)
>
charghwI'
--
\___
o_/ \
<\__,\
"> | Get a grip.
` |