tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 21 08:08:01 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: New Klingon Primer
>Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 21:35:29 -0800
>From: [email protected]
>In a message dated 95-11-15 00:34:03 EST, you write:
>><ngeb> ghItlh 'e' Hechbe'ba' peHruS. lughba' <ngeD>.
>>mu'tlhegh ngeb vIqImHa' 'ach nom mu'tlhegh ngeD vIlaDlaH.
>>
>>peHruS: > Huch vIvI' 'e' vIchaw'lu'
>>
>>mISqu' mu'tlheghvam. lughlaHbe' {...'e' vIchaw'lu'}.
>Salugh
I am-right you? "Sulugh" perhaps? or "bIlugh"?
>{ngeD} vighItlh 'e' vIHech
>{'e' vIchaw'lu'} is questioned. Do you say it is wrong because a verb + lu'
>must not take an object, and {'e'} is considered an object?
No, because "'e'" *is* the object, and verb+lu' must not take a SUBJECT.
The prefixes are backwards, so "vI-" means the *object* is "I", and if the
object is "I", it can't be "'e'" also. I think the suggestion was to use
"net chaw'". Any time you find yourself using "'e' Xlu'", think about "net
X", which is likely better.
>peHruS
~mark