tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu May 25 19:31:02 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: loDHompu'




On Thu, 25 May 1995 [email protected] wrote:

>      On Thu, 25 May 1995 R.B. Franklin wrote
>      
>      snip
>      >Unfortunately, the TKD doen't give definitions of words. I suspect
>      >{Hem} means "to have a proud attitude" and not "to be pleased with,
>      >or highly approving of something."
>      snip
>      
>      The TKD is limiting enough without limiting how to define each word.  
>      In "The Random House American Dictionary" the first definition of 
>      "proud" (first of all, its an adj.) is "having pride."  The Webster's 
>      New Dictionary was along the same lines.  

That definition is fine.  My point was only that, just because an English 
word may have a variety of unrelated meanings, that does not mean the 
equivalent Klingon word carries all those same meanings.
 
>      TKD says <Hem = be 
>      proud(v)>.  So if I wanted to say "I am proud of you" I would use 
>      <qaHem> <I be proud you>.  What could be simpler?

Every Klingon verb whose translation begins with "be", as in "be red" or 
"be big" is a verb describing a state or quality and are, by their very 
nature, intransitive and unless you add {-moH} to them, they don't have 
direct objects.

Saying {qaHem} is as ungrammatical in Klingon as "I be proud you" is in 
English.  

>      'a DaSaH 'e' tlho' vIghajmeH
>      
>      I meant this to be, "But, I appreciate you caring." or "But, you care 
>      that(previous topic) appreciation I have for."

{tlho' vIghajmeH} is a purpose clause meaning "in order that I have 
appreciation".  (See Sec. 6.2.4.)

{'e'} is used to join two sentences where the first sentence is the 
object of the second sentence.  The pronoun {'e'}, which represents the 
first sentence, is always the object of the verb in the second sentence.  
(See Sec. 6.2.5.)  In {tlho' vIghaj}, since, {tlho'} is the object of 
{vIghaj}, you can't also use {'e'} as the object of that same verb.  

You could say {'a DaSaHmo' tlho' vIghaj.}

>      r'Hul

yoDtargh



Back to archive top level