tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Oct 17 16:16:14 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
taghqIj concedes defeat! :)
> According to Matt Treyvaud:
> >
> ..
> > jIyaj. But then what if you have been there before but were not there at
> > the time in question? - e.g. a murder in your kitchen (which you didn't
> > commit). A better way to express all the meanings, I think, would be
> > {poHvetlh qaStaHvIS, pa' jIHbe'}... this seems much less ambiguous. {pa'
> > jIHpu'be'} and {pa' jIHbe'pu'} both seem flawed to me.
>
> First, your word order is wrong. Your {poHvetlh} is supposed to
> be the subject of {qaStaHvIS}, right? Next, you are mixing time
> and space when you take a space-oriented locative {-vetlh} and
> apply it to a time-oriented noun {poH}. While it is okay to do
> this in English, I don't know of any rule or example in canon
> that lets us do this in Klingon.
jIQaghpu' - my word order was indeed wrong, and -vetlh was a bad choice.
Now, I agree with the rest of your reply, so let's not go into that :).
But how would it be if I said:
qaStaHvIS poHvam, pa' jIHbe'
Using -vam not meaning 'This period of time near me as we speak' but
'This period of time that we were just talking about'. Of course, this
sentence could only be used if a time -had- been mentioned, so it's not
as usable. Just wondering about the use of -vam.
Another thing: I have started a tlhIngan section on my home page, and I
would appreciate input. Not on the content, because I doubt that the
serious tlhIngans out there will appreciate the silliness, but on the
grammatical correctness. The address ought to be just down there in my .sig
taghqIj
C /\ T
F /()\ C ...CM is ATMA!
C /____\ ...http://ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au/~cthulhu/say-it.html
GANTA