tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jul 03 18:07:06 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: tlhIngan pongmey
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: tlhIngan pongmey
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 20:11:10 -0500
[email protected] writes:
>nuvpu' vItu' 'ej[?] tlhIngan pongmey lughaj. jubwI' joq jIjub pongwI'?
>ugh...my use of tlhIngan Hol is HORRIBLE!:-( Corrections PLEASE!
"I notice people and they have Klingon names."
This isn't horrible at all; in fact, it's a pretty good way of saying it
without a sentence-as-object construction (as explained in TKD 6.2.5).
The verb prefix on {ghaj} is wrong, though; a plural subject with a plural
object is indicated by a null prefix. A closer translation of what you
intended would be {tlhIngan pongmey ghaj nuvpu' 'e' vItu'}, using the
sentence-as-object grammar.
"{jubwI'} and/or {jIjub} my name (capable of speaking)?"
This, however, can be considered horrible. :-) Assuming {jIjub} isn't
being used as a verb, there is no verb here at all. How about this?
{<jubwI'> joq <jIjub> 'oHlaH'a' pongwIj}
"Can my name be {jubwI'} and/or {jIjub}?"
(Though putting so many verb suffix on a "to be" verb feels a bit strange.)
To answer your question: your name can be whatever you want it to be.
>*I know in the TKD it says the verb suffix -wI' means "one who does/thing
>which does," but someone (I won't mention names) told me -wI' means "one
>who is/does." Is this correct? If so I prefer the later.
The verb suffix {-wI'} is variously translated as:
- "one who does, thing which does" (TKD 3.2.2, p.19; TKD 4.2.9, p.44)
- "one who is, one who does, thing which does" (TKD p.164)
- "one who is, one who does" (TKD p.167)
- "thing which is, thing which does" (TKD p.168)
The "is" meaning is obviously only appropriate with "stative" verbs.
{jubwI'} can be interpreted as "one who does be immortal" but it is
much less stilted in english as "one who is immortal."
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj