tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Apr 20 16:32:04 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
RE: KLBC: be'pu'
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: RE: KLBC: be'pu'
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 97 22:29:05 UT
jatlh charghwI':
> On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:51:06 -0700 (PDT) DaQtIq
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Mago-vaD jang SuStel:
> ..
> > >mu'meylIjmo' DuparchoHbe' be' SaH 'e' vItul.
> >
> > ramqu'! mu'meyDajmo' parchoHchugh be' vaj buSHa'nIS Mago.
>
> jIQochbe'qu'!
>
> > be'nalqoqwI'vaD jImagh'eghpu'. vIQuchmoHtaH 'e' vInID 'ej DuHbe'.
>
> be' vIQuchmoH not 'e' vInIDqa'. DuHbe'ba' 'e' vIghojta' jIH je
Well, this IS under KLBC, so to point this out to any beginners who might be
listening . . .
Since one cannot put a Type 7 verb suffix on the second verb of a
sentence-as-object construction (there's got to be a shorter way to say
that!), this would either have to be
DuHbe'ba'ta' 'e' vIghoj je jIH
or just leave it out entirely
DuHbe'ba' 'e' vIghoj je jIH.
Actually, if I were to use the Type 7, I'd choose {-pu'} instead of {-ta'}. I
don't suppose it was your intention to learn this, it just happened.
Also, I used {vIghoj je jIH} instead of {vIghoj jIH je}. When {je} comes
after a noun (or pronoun), it's a noun conjunction, but there's no noun that
you're joining {jIH} with here! But, when it comes after the verb, it means
"also."
> HochvaD Quch'eghnISmoHbej.
That's pretty weird. I'm not certain I understand it.
--
SuStel
Beginners' Grammarian
Stardate 97303.0