tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Jan 29 08:32:26 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: About {pong}
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: About {pong}
- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 11:27:58 -0500
>I would be honoured to hear what you have to say, Guido.
I'm honored that you're honored to hear what I have to say, tho it may
disappoint you.
>> puqloD pongmeH, "qeylIS" lo' SuvwI'.
>Well, I cannot argue with the validity of this re-casting. However, it
>doesn't contribute to whether or not the example I gave is a valid,
>understandable, grammatical statement.
>The idea here, after all, is the challenge of finding a way to use <pong>
>as the only verb in the sentence, if at all possible, as is done in
>tera'ngan Hol. {{:)
But why? What is so incredibly special about using {pong} as the lone verb
just because English does. I may just be that it doesn't work out in Klingon,
and that's that. The challenge has been met, but now restrictions are being
placed on the solution. Klingon simply does not have a grammar that allows
object-complement constructions to fit in. That's the main problem with using
{pong} by itself in a sentence.
ghaytan nIyonbe'moHchugh jangbogh mu'wIj, jIyonbe' je. 'ach jIjangchu'ta',
batlh chotlhobmo'. vaj DaH mIwvam yIlo'chu', tlhIngan Hol Dalo'taHvIS je.
qay'be'jaj. tamjaj bepwI' --- bepbogh mu'chaj tamjaj je vangmeH mIwchaj.
chav'a'vaD mIwvam'e' vIllo'chu' 'e' vInID jIH.
>--HoD trI'Qal
DujDaj pongmeH, "lIy So'" jatlh HoDvam quv.
ghuy'Do