tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Jul 08 10:01:54 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KBLC: some questions
On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, Alan Anderson wrote:
> 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.
>
HIvqa' veqlargh! Actually I changed my example without changing the
translation.
> 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).
>
So "Perhaps she accidentally hit him" would be {chaq bong qIp}? I
sometimes forget the difference between aspect and tense. But I'll get
better at it. :)
dave yeung
> >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
>
>
>