tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Dec 11 05:45:54 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KBLC: <-vetlh>
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KBLC: <-vetlh>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 04:33:52 UT
December 10, 1996 9:46 PM, jatlh Andrew 'Ska' Netherton:
> <ghIjwI'vetlh wIchargh>
> those that scare, we conquer
{ghIj}, I believe, means "scare" as in "cause another to be afraid." In fact,
I know so: see TKW p. 65: {jaghmeylI' DaghIjjaj}.
What you're trying to say is
vay' wIghIjchugh, wIchargh.
We conquer anyone whom we scare.
> <ghIjvetlh latlhpu' wIchargh>
> those that scare other beings, we conquer
Huh? {ghIj} is a verb, so cannot take a noun suffix. I really don't know
what you were trying for here. In fact, I don't understand why anyone would
say this at all? We conquer those who frighten others? {latlh ghIjbogh
vay''e' wIchargh}?
> I can't put my finger on what I think is wrong - it may be that I'm using
> <-vetlh> wrong, or that it can't be used with <-wI'> for "thing that
> does".
Oh, I see. No, "that" refers to "that thing." Let me show you:
SopwI'
eater
SopwI'vetlh
that eater
SopwI'vam
this eater
QuchwI'
one who is happy
QuchwI'vetlh
that person who is happy
Get it? This is a different sort of "that" than {'e'}. Read the TKD on {'e'}
and on {-vetlh} again, if necessary.
> Could the first one be rewritten (correctly) as:
>
> <ghIjwI' wIchargh>
> things that scare, we conquer
Well, if it's to be plural, it would have to be
ghIjwI' DIchargh.
We conquer those who scare (others).
> This seems right to me... maybe the <-vatlh> in the first one is redundant
> (if not plain, outright WRONG). yIchup.
The {-vetlh} is wrong. {-vetlh} is the sort of "that" in "I see that ball."
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 96945.1