tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat Sep 28 21:18:09 1996
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: KLBC:-bogh again
- From: [email protected] (HoD trI'Qal)
- Subject: Re: KLBC:-bogh again
- Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 00:19:08 -0400
At 01:11 PM 9/7/96 -0700, Laurel Beckley wrote:
>I recently posted some sentences using the verb suffix -bogh. They
>haven't been commented on yet, but I found a mistake in my last sentence,
>so I thought I'd post them again, with the correction in the last
>sentence.
Good! You caught your own error! majQa'!
One of the things I try to recommend to new posters is to double-check their
own posts, preferably before they send them. In fact, there was a beginner
a looong time ago, who's posts were... okay, but very error-ridden. One
day, she posted "the Top 10 Klingon Bumper Sitckers". The post was a nice
attempt, but pretty awful. There were several replies to the post, one of
which recommended that she go over her posts a bit more before she mailed
them, as most of her errors were of the kinda she could likey catch herself.
She must have started doing this, because her next post was SUCH an
improvement (and all in Klingon!) over her original, that Qanqor himself
stated that he was not going to point out the few errors she made the second
time around, simply because so much effort went into the new posting...
I suspect you can still find this series of posts in the list archive, if
you have a way to access it. You might even get a chuckle out of the whole
thread. I am sure that the person who made those posts won't mind my using
them as an example, as she is still an active poster on the list, and can
protest if she desires... {{:) {{:)
>choppu' qettaHbogh Saj.
>The pet which is running bit him.
This is fine, although the -taH may be a bit superfluous. Very well done!
>HoHpu' SoptaHbogh loD.
>The man who is eating killed him.
Ditto here!
>HoH qettaHbogh loD 'e' vIleghpu'.
>
>In my original post, I left out the 'e' in the third sentence, which is
>supposed to be: I saw the man who is running kill him. Was this attempt
>better?
Actaully, I think it would have been better had you left the <'e'> out.
{{:( The main reason for this is because the way you have it here, <'e'> is
a seperate word. The only time you use <'e'> is when you have a sentence as
an object of another sentence. What you wanted was the noun suffix -'e',
which would ahve been correct had you attached it to <loD>. What you have
here is, well... jibberish. {{:(
As another note, you only require the -'e' if you have both an object and
subject your relative-clause phrase; in all other relative clauses, it is
more or less optional. Here is an example:
HoHbogh qamma' vIleghpu'
This is very obviously "I saw the prisoner who kills."
yaS HoHlu'bogh bIleghpu'
Likewise, this has to be "I saw the officer who someone kills"
?yaS HoHpu'bogh qamma' bIlegh?
The ?s are to show that this is not grammatically correct.
Okay, now... which is this? "I saw the prisoner who killed the officer" or
is it "I saw the officer who the prisoner killed"?
We have no way of knowing, unless one of them is "flagged" with some sort of
suffix. Fortuantely, we HAVE a suffix for this: -'e', as you noticed.
In all your examples, you have only either a clear subject or a clear object
to be the "head noun" of the realtive clause. The "head noun" is the one
which, if the rest of the relative clause is reomoved, retains the original
meaning of the sentence. Using my last example agian, if I am talking about
the prisoner who killed theofficer,t hen the prosoner is the head-noun. If
I am talking about the officer who killed the prisoner, then the officer is
the head noun. You attach -'e', when needed/desired, to the head noun.
This help any? I hope it does...
>Laurel
--tQ
---
HoD trI'Qal, tlhIngan wo' Duj lIy So' ra'wI'
Captain T'rkal, Commander IKV Hidden Comet (Klingon speaker and net junkie!)
HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'! toH... qatlh HaghtaH Qanqor HoD???
monlI'bogh tlhInganbe' yIvoqQo'! SoHvaD monlI' trI'Qal...