tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 04 15:11:13 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: Sorry this is so long! (was KLBC: on naming convention)
- From: "HurghwI'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: Sorry this is so long! (was KLBC: on naming convention)
- Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 17:13:10 -0600
jatlh SuStel:
>> >qaD Dapar'a'? wejpuH!
>>
>> Hobe'. Hoch qaD vImuSHa'! {{;)}
>
>yIjatlh <ghobe'>. *<Hobe'> yIjatlhQo'.
Qu'vatlh!
>> qapumbe'! ghuHmoHwI'lIj vIlaj, 'ach chomISpu'.
>
><chomISmoH> yIjatlh. Is there any reason you use the aspect markers so much?
>It seems to me that you're confusing them with tense.
I use them whenever I would use have, had, etc. in English.
>> *tHtg* (tlhIngan Hol taghwI'
>> ghom)
>
>Ugh. Don't do this.
I just realized that if I were to do this, I should make it tlh.H.t.gh. anyway.
>> poQwI' ("rules")
>
>chutmey
toH. I couldn't find it.
>> >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.
>
>It doesn't work that way. Even in English, you can't say "Kruge's his ship."
>Pick one and one only.
jIyaj
-HurghwI'
Hovjaj 96926.6