Re: KLBC: Introductions

[DTrimboli@aol.com]

In a message dated 96-07-03 18:11:15 EDT, chIya'ghu (Does that mean a baby
Chia-pet?) wrote:

> >There were lots of mispronunciations in the 
>  >Holodeck Adventure.  I cringed when I heard "b_ay_yem'a'"
>
>  Because one mispronounces something, it doesn't mean it isn't cannon.
 This 
> is a 
>  MO/paramount project so it is cannon, it's just that some people can't 
> pronounce 
>  as well as others... [. . .]

One might say that it is a canon mispronounciation . . .

>  >Now how do I know 
>  >I'm not saying Kahless's loyal son, as opposed to Kahless's son Maltz?  
>  
>  You would probably know by the introduction or context.  Also, I don't see

> how 
>  {qeylIS puqloD matlh} can be Kahless' loyal son since matlh is not an 
>  adjective.....

Sure it is.  It's a stative verb which can be used adjectivally.  {qeylIS
puqloD matlh} does indeed mean "Kahless' loyal son."

Also, as a side note, ever notice that the word {matlh} is in the Addendum,
invented long after Maltz himself was named . . .

>  >SoHvaD jIjatlhneS
>  
>  Since this sentence has an object, {SoH}, you need the verb suffix {vI-}
(I-
> it)!
>  

No, {SoHvaD jIjatlhneS} is perfectly grammatical.  {SoH} is not the object
(at least, not the direct object) of the verb.  It simply indicates the
beneficiary of the action.  {jIjatlhneS} has no direct object.

I do, however, wonder about the purpose of the statement.  It was used at the
end of a letter.  Was it meant to mean "I have spoken to you (honorific)"?
 "You" plural?  If you were addressing all the members of the list, you
should say, {tlhIHvaD jIjatlhneS}.  And since you're putting this at the end
of a letter, in which you have finished speaking, you might consider,
{tlhIHvaD jIjatlhta'neS}.

SuStel
Hovjaj 96508.0