tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 16:32:05 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

• Index by Date
• Index by Thread
• Index by Author

RE: KLBC: be'pu'; AMBIGUITY ALERT!!

• From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
• Subject: RE: KLBC: be'pu'; AMBIGUITY ALERT!!
• Date: Sun, 20 Apr 97 23:12:07 UT

jatlh qoror:

> Message text written by DaQtIq
> >tlhIngan Holmo' Haw'chugh be', vIneHbe'bej!<
> 
> qay'!  "vI" -- mu'mey nuq DaHech: "be'" "tlhIngan Hol" ghap?  "ghaH" "'oH"
> ghap?"

Well, when you take it out of context like this, yes, it's abiguous.  But 
DaQtIq was talking about not wanting women who won't accept you for speaking 
Klingon.

Oh, by the way, you probably cannot say *{mu'mey nuq} for "which words."  
{mu'mey nuq} means "what are the words?"  You probably shouldn't even say 
*{mu'mey nuq 'e' DaHech}, because that's a question-as-object (and no one has 
yet been able to convince me of such a construction's validity).

Finally, {Hech} means "intend to."  You don't "intend to a word."

Here's how I might do it:

mu'mey DaneHbogh nuq?

or

nuq bIH mu'mey'e' DaneHbogh?

-- 
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97303.1

• Prev by Date: RE: KLBC: be'pu'
• Next by Date: RE: SopDaq
• Prev by thread: KLBC: Trying
• Next by thread: RE: KLBC: be'pu'; AMBIGUITY ALERT!!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

Back to archive top level