tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Sep 15 00:55:57 1995
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: }} wI' and pronouns.
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: }} wI' and pronouns.
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 23:55:57 -0500
Matt Treyvaud writes:
>1) Can wI' be used with all other verb suffixes and/or supporting words?
>Eg {Salpu'wI'} = That which has ascended, or {SalwI' rIntaH} = That which
>has ascended, and will not/cannot return?
jIHaghqu'taH! I think a good answer would be "Yes and no."
A better answer might be "Certainly; and absolutely not!"
Go right ahead and use any other verb suffixes you want (except
of course another type 9 suffix), then add {-wI'}, then any
noun suffixes you want. No problem with the first part.
But don't try to use {-wI'} on anything more complicated than
a verb! charghwI' and I recently had a thoroughly delightful
debate on this sort of subject, and he convinced me that {-wI'}
is applicable to bare verbs only.
>2) Can any verb suffixes you like be used when pronouns are used to mean 'to
>be'? Eg {jIHpu'} = I was being, I was?
Sure.
Except that {-pu'} doesn't mean "was", it means "has", "had", or
"will have". {jIHpu'} can mean "I have been", "I had been", or
"I will have been". {-pu'} indicates "perfective aspect" (the
action is complete in the frame of reference of the sentence).
It does not indicate "past tense" (the action took place before
"now"). There is no "tense" in Klingon. (In order to say that
something took place yesterday, one uses the word "yesterday".)
> C /\ T yInmeyraj boSIQjaj
> F /()\ C bangpu'ra' boSIQjaj
> C /____\
> GANTA
>
>P.S. By the way, is my grammar correct in my .sig?
I don't see anything wrong with the grammar. However, it's
apparently a translation from a play on words in English; a
true Klingon wouldn't find it particularly profound or clever.
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj