tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 02 12:30:36 1997
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: V-bogh N V(adj) (was Re: bIQ'a' Doq bIngDaq)
- From: "David Trimboli" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: V-bogh N V(adj) (was Re: bIQ'a' Doq bIngDaq)
- Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 01:31:31 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Terrence Donnelly <[email protected]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, December 02, 1997 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: V-bogh N V(adj) (was Re: bIQ'a' Doq bIngDaq)
>> yIntaHbogh tlhIngan Soj tlhol jablu'DI' tIvqu'lu'.
>> "Klingon food is best when served fresh and live."
>>
>>The relevant phrase is {yIntaHbogh tlIngan Soj tlhol}. It's not perfect;
>>{yIn} isn't a "be something" verb. But it's close.
>>
>
>Didn't Okrand address this in KGT? And the proper form is indeed
> <adj>-bogh <noun> <adj>
There are two possiblities supported by canon.
(1) <adj1>-bogh <noun> <adj2>
(2) <adj1>-bogh <noun> 'ej <adj2>-bogh
where <adj> represents an adjectivally-acting verb.
In fact, the first sentence can be generalized to
<verb>-bogh <noun> <adj>
"Sentence" conjunctions actually join verb clauses, not necessarily whole
sentences. When you've got two verbs joined by a conjunction, and the
subject is the same, it's customary to omit the subject the second time. I
believe that's what's happening in the second sentence.
See KGT p. 82. {SuDbogh Dargh 'ej wovbogh}