tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Fri Jul 05 16:43:38 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC: Introductions
- From: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: KLBC: Introductions
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 19:44:30 -0400
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