tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Nov 12 17:19:05 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC to use with
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC to use with
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 01:07:14 UT
jatlh Ken N:
> I'm looking to find out how to use 'with', -vaD I think.
Not really. See below.
> For example "He hit me on the head with a knife."
>
> nachDaq mumupta'
> or
> nachwIjDaq mumupta'
>
> using strike (mup) instead of hit (because I don't know that word.
> All correct I hope........... feel free to let me know.
The word for "hit" is {qIp}, but {mup} will do just as well.
Your sentences above are fine, although make sure you realize that {-ta'} does
not mean past tense, it means that the action is completed at whatever time
you're talking about. If I said {wa'leS nachwIjDaq mumupta'} it would mean
"Tomorrow, he will have hit me on the head (intentionally)." The action is
already done.
> Would I say.......
> tajVad nachDaq mumupta' or nachDaq mumupta' tajvaD.
>
> I believe that I can do it either way. So I have two questions.
> One, can I do it either way and
> Two, is -vaD the way so say "he did something to something with something
No and no. {-vaD} does not mean with, it means the noun receives the benefit
or result of the verb. Often it is used to indicate indirect objects. A noun
with {-vaD} must go before the object noun, or the verb if there is no object.
To say something like "He struck me with the knife," you've got to construct
another clause. Here are two examples:
taj lo'taHvIS ghaH, mumup
While using the knife, he struck me.
mumupmeH ghaH, taj lo'.
He used the knife in order to strike me.
Note that I chose to translate these into the past tense. Since Klingon does
not express tense in its grammar, I also could have translated these into the
present or future tenses if I had wanted to.
SuStel
BG
Stardate 96868.0