tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Dec 02 17:50:06 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Sorry this is so long! (was KLBC: on naming convention)
- From: "HurghwI'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Sorry this is so long! (was KLBC: on naming convention)
- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 19:52:15 -0600
At 02:10 PM 12/1/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Sunday, December 01, 1996 11:46 AM, jatlh HurghwI':
>
>> >> qay'be'lIj 'oH nuq?
>> >
>> >{qay'} is NOT a noun. It is a verb. {qatlh SoHvaD qay' jabbI'IDwIj?}
>>
>> Not quite the same . . . how about:
>> SoHvaD qay' nuq?
>
>maj. 'ach mu'tlheghwIj qar law' mu'tlheghlIj qar puS. {{:-P
bIlugh.
>> >> janglaH Hoch jIjangpa', 'ach pab lughmoHlaHbe' vay' jIjangpa'.
>> >
>> >nuqjatlh?
>>
>> Dayajbe''a'? vImugh:
>
>mu'tlheghlIj Qav neH vIyajbe'.
I realized after I sent this how harsh my words sounded, so I wanted to say
that I wasn't attacking SuStel, but merely trying to sound like a warrior. I
apologize for that. mughojmoHta' QaghwIj. (This would make a good
replacement proverb, you think?)
>> Everyone can reply before you, but anyone can not correct before you.
>
>bIjatlhHa'. <bIjangpa' janglaH Hoch, 'ach bIlughmoHpa' lughmoH pagh.>
toH! jImISpu'. bIlugh.
>> >QaghDI' taghwI', yIlughmoHQo'. mu'mey chu' yIchupQo'. mu'tlheghmey chu'
>> >yIchupQo'. yIja'chuq neH! yIja'chuqtaHqu'! 'ach QaghDI' taghwI',
>yIqImQo'!
>>
>> wejpuH. qaDlIj meqmey vIyajbe'.
>
>nuqjatlh? qaqaDbe'. qara'qu'!
qaDlIj - your challenge. batlhwIj DaqaDta'.
>> jabbI'IDvetlhDaq Qaghmey vI'angta'be'.
>> jabbI'ID wa'DIch vIwuvta'be'.
>jIyajbej. Dap Dajatlhlaw'.
"In that message I didn't point out any errors."
"I didn't rely on the original message."
Okay, what I was trying to do here was say that my message did not affect
the KLBC message. It was unrelated, in a way.
>> jabbI'IDDaq pIm, mu'meyvetlh rap vIjatlhchugh, DaSaHbe'!
>
>This is *still* under KLBC!
I didn't mean to post it as KLBC; I certainly wasn't expecting you to bother
correcting it. Sorry.
>When using adjectival verbs along with nouns with a Type 5 suffix, the suffix
>goes on the *verb*. {jabbI'ID pImDaq}.
>
>nuq Dajatlh 'e' DanID?
"In a different message, if I had spoken words which were the same, you
would not have cared."
If I had said the same thing, but not in reply to a KLBC message, it would
not have been an infringement of KLBC, correct?
>> jIHvaD qay' Doch pIm.
>> vIqawbogh jabbI'IDDaq, pab lulughmoHbejta' ghotmey pIm bIjangpa'.
>> 'ach bIjatlhbe'! qatlh chaH bIqImbe', 'ach reH choqaD?
>
>So far, all evidence points to {qIm} being intransitive. Besides, you've used
>the wrong suffix. {qatlh chaHvaD bIqImbe'}.
bIlugh.
>qaD Dapar'a'? wejpuH!
Hobe'. Hoch qaD vImuSHa'! {{;)}
>motlh batlhHa' vang vay', QuvDajDaq jabbI'ID vIlab 'ej jIjatlh <jIjangpa'
>yIjangQo'>. rut jabbI'IDghomDaq ghuHmoHwI'vam vIlab. SoHvaD vIlab. QeychoH
>QeH, 'ach batlhHa' chopum'a'!
qapumbe'! ghuHmoHwI'lIj vIlaj, 'ach chomISpu'. *tHtg* (tlhIngan Hol taghwI'
ghom) poQwI' ("rules") vIyajbe'pu'. teblaw'lIj yotmey DaSaHbe'taHvIS,
jImISchoH. 'ach DaH jIyajlaw'.
>> >pab DalughmoH 'e' DanIDDI' qoj mu'tlheghmey chu' DachupDI' rut bIQagh
>SoH'e'!
>>
>> bIlugh, 'ach Hatchugh Qaghmey, ghomvamvaD ghItlh taghwI' pabpo' neH! taghwI'
>> mu'tlheghmeyDaj wa'DIch nIS QaghmeywIj.
>
>If you've got the two nouns, one the possessor and the other being possessed,
>you don't need the suffix {-Daj}.
I know, but I used it to make clear the purpose of the noun-noun combination.
>qayajmeH, Qatlh. QaQ tlhIngan HollIj, 'ach taQ mu'meylIj.
>
>Your conversation seems a little disjointed to me. I'm not sure I can follow
>this.
>
>> >vaj mISchoHbejqu' taghwI', qar'a'? baQa'!
>>
>> vay' lughbe' laDchugh taghwI', mISchoH ghaH!
>
><vay' lughmoHbe'> bIjatlh 'e' DaHech'a'?
ghobe'. <lughbe'bogh vay' laDchugh taghwI', mISchoH ghaH!> jIjatlh 'e'
vIHech. DaH Dayaj'a'?
>> chaq HatchoH Qaghmey? DaneH'a'?
>> jabbI'IDvetlhDaq, taghwI' mu'tlheghmeyDaj wa'DIch SaH qechmeywIj.
"Perhaps in that case, errors should be illegal. [It should be a period] Is
that what you want? [I hope not! {{;)}] In that message, my ideas were not
concerened with the beginner's original sentences."
>I still can't follow what you're saying.
I hope my explanations are satisfactory.
>Here's the deal: go ahead and answer
>questions posted under KLBC, but don't reply to grammar, word choices, etc.!
>If someone says {jih Santa Claus}, don't go pointing out their spelling errors
>or their mis-ordered words. I'll do that. However, please do contribute by
>answering such an outlandish statement! {Santa Claus SoHchugh, targhna' jIH}
> COMPLETELY IGNORE ALL ERRORS! yaj'a'? Qochbe''a'?
DaH jIyajlaw'. DaH jIQoch, 'ej jImISbe'. bItuvmo' 'ej choQaHmo' qatlho'.
>--
>SuStel
>Beginners' Grammarian
>Stardate 96919.7
-HurghwI'
Hovjaj 96921.2