tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Jul 04 22:24:17 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KBLC: some questions
- From: [email protected] (Alan Anderson)
- Subject: Re: KBLC: some questions
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 00:28:25 -0500
Dave Yeung writes:
>wa' mu'tlheghDaq cha' <adverbials> lo'laH'a' vay'?
>i.e., {chaq bong qIppu'} "She accidentally hit him."
There's nothing preventing us from using more than one adverbial in the
same sentence. It's usually no problem to understand them.
But your example says "Perhaps she has accidentally hit him." Your
translation uses past tense, but the verb suffix {-pu'} indicates
perfective aspect. If you had left off that suffix, your use of past
tense wouldn't be a problem, but your words imply that you have an
incorrect understanding of the difference between tense and aspect.
Klingon grammar doesn't distinguish between past, present, and future.
To indicate when something happened, happens, or will happen, you can
either rely on context or give an explicit day or time.
Type 7 verb suffixes don't say *when* something occurs. They indicate
the degree of completion of the action (ongoing, finished) and can say
whether or not the action is undertaken intentionally or has a specific
goal (in progress, completed).
>tlhIngan Hol vIlo'taHvIS chay' "prayer" vIjatlh? {mu'naD} vIlo'.
Depending on exactly how you mean "prayer", you can translate it many
ways. Your {mu'naD} sounds like one of three common kinds of prayers
(praise); there are also prayers of thanksgiving and of petition. I
would focus more on the action using verbs than trying to find a noun
to describe it.
>wa' mu'tlheghDaq cha' lengwI'mey tu'lu''a'?
>i.e., {vIchoHHa'laHbe'} "I cannot undo the change."
>Is it permissible to use both {-Ha'} and {-be'} or, for that matter, use
>a rover twice in the same verb?
Sure, there's no reason not to use as many rovers as will fit.
>Some words have more than one meaning. {pIqaD} also means "we challenge
>you", and {HIja'} means "you (imp) tell me!" Is there a reason for this?
A reason? Not that I know of.
>jangmeyrajmo' Satlho'
{jang} is a verb; it doesn't take noun suffixes. You're welcome anyway. :-)
-- ghunchu'wI' batlh Suvchugh vaj batlh SovchoH vaj